< June 14	June 16 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mastik Lickers[edit]

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

non-notable musical group, no charting, nothing that otherwise qualifies them for an article and certainly no meaningful coverage BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no claims in the article that meet WP:MUSIC and this is an Italian band with no article on that language wiki. Jeepday (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.4meter4 (talk) 04:28, 23 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. – Joe (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasi (band)[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The sole notability claim being attempted here is the existence of two EPs, but NMUSIC #5 is looking for full albums, and nothing else stated here passes any other criterion in NMUSIC. And while there is one decent Billboard citation, that isn't enough all by itself -- of the other three footnotes, two are dead links which both turned out to be very, very short and unsubstantive blurbs when I Waybacked them, and one just tangentially verifies the existence of an event while completely failing to verify the claim that this band had anything to do with it. (There were previously additional footnotes which were recently stripped by another editor, but they were entirely of the "music sourced to its own existence on Spotify" variety, which is not support for notability either.)
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only two members of the band mentioned (and there must have been others) do not have articles and I can't find significant coverage of either online. MarnetteD|Talk 21:48, 17 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 03:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Intuition[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant independent coverage per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 18:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found multiple reviews as well as mentions in the Los Angeles Times and Variety. The director is notable and the actors are well-known and notable. Many articles link to this article. There are also articles for the film on French Wikipedia and Italian Wikipedia. --Nicholas0 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a pass of WP:NFP or WP:NFSOURCES in the sources or in my own search. Only the horrornews story is more than a passing mention, upcoming showing, or plot summary. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and the above delete comment. No significant coverage to pass GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Vairety and LA times sources that @Nicholas0 mentioned are definitely not significant in any way, and I could not find any significant sources on Google either. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, just about fails GNG and NFILM. The article from Los Angeles Times is only a passing mention and several of the other sources do not seem reliable or establish notability. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:19, 22 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. czar 05:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Passarelli[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Her only possible claim to notability is that she was the first woman to graduate Berklee College of Music as a guitar performance major. Being the first woman to graduate with a particular major really is not notable. Sources provided are almost exclusively local or primary. Providing a single quote to CBS News and making a brief appearance on a VH1 special is not notable. She does not meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Rusf10 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete no real claim to notability except "first women" for a very narrow definition (first women in a particular college in a particular major). No real coverage or academic credentials (neither on JSTOR nor Google Scholar). Pretty clear cut case of failing WP:NPROF. --hroest 01:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: first AFD closed as keep, merits further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "first x to x" claim could help support WP:BASIC notability if it were covered in independent reliable sources, but I don't see any such sources. (Perhaps that is not surprising, given the narrowness of the claim.) No indication that the subject's band has had the kind of impact that might grant WP:NARTIST notability, nor of WP:NPROF, nor of other notability that I can see. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:49, 20 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. – Joe (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advocates for Self-Government[edit]

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

The entire article is based on either primary sources or unreliable blogs ([1], [2]). The present Forbes article is unreliable due to WP:FORBESCON. The only other sources I could find are basic listings, a passing,trivial mention in this ABC News article, and a passing mention in this obituary. It may be acceptable to Merge/Redirect to Marshall Fritz, but I don't believe he passes WP:BIO. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poor sourcing. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:05, 19 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 23:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia López Etxeberría[edit]

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

I'm currently going through a lot of these Spanish stubs and trying to see if they can be improved at all. Her brief career never rose to the level of meeting WP:NFOOTBALL and I'm not seeing any coverage towards WP:GNG. Currently, the article is only referenced to a stats page and a trivial mention. WP:BEFORE, including a Spanish search, comes back with nothing other than more stats pages like BD Futbol, which do not establish notability. If sources discussing her in depth are found, please ping me so I can expand the article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NFOOTY and doesn't have SIGCOV.--Mvqr (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:11, 16 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Ginetta Junior Championship[edit]

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

Tagged with a notability guideline since 2013, this article's about a youth sporting event which generally do not pass notability guidelines. Also, the only secondary coverage in the article is from the Checkered Flag, which I'm not sure is a WP:RS. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep - Most likely notable. Was broadcast live on terrestrial television and probably received coverage in Autosport magazine, although I'm not sure if they would have published national coverage on their website during that era. Possibly would have received coverage in Motor Sport magazine too, although their coverage of lower level national racing is often less extensive. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 15 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. – Joe (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centrul Național Media[edit]

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

The only sources I can find on this topic are affiliated or Wikipedia mirrors. Seems not notable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eight Google News hits for a media entity plus a rowiki article even shorter than ours make me very doubtful that there's enough RS out there for a proper article. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:33, 19 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Salvino[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is a WP:ROTM businessman doing his job, profiled by a declared WP:PAID editor. WP:BOMBARD with references to PR and press releases and primary sources. WP:NOTLINKEDIN. I note the outcome of the prior AfD, and suggest salting. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 10:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom. Basic career profile, source-bombed with barely relevant PR.~~ Since it has been pointed out that DXC is Fortune 500, Keep per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. But much of the coverage here relates to previous non-notable roles so I would prefer a merge of relevant information to DXC. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the article creator; COI declared here. As the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, Salvino already meets WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. DXC Technology was failing and Salvino was brought in to turn it around. Here is a sample of some significant coverage:

Extended content
Full articles: Johnson, O’Ryan (September 13, 2019). "DXC Technology's New CEO: 5 Things You Need To Know About Mike Salvino". CRN. (Note: This is 6 pages long) O'Daniel, Adam (February 6, 2015). "Five steps for consulting success". Charlotte Business Journal. Frinton, Sandy (January–February 2013). "Fresh Face: Mike Salvino: View from the C-Suite" (PDF). Pulse. International Association of Outsourcing Professionals. pp. 36–43. (7 paragraphs preceding an interview) Significant coverage within other articles: "Debra Polishook named group CEO, Accenture operations". Post Online Media. June 3, 2016. (7 paragraphs) Bendor-Samuel, Peter (September 12, 2019). "DXC Technology Changes CEO". Forbes. (7 paragraphs) Profiles: "Michael J. Salvino". Wall Street Journal. Pierce, Freddie (March 8, 2011). "The Top Outsourcing Professionals". Supply Chain. Andrews, Kate; McAteer, M. J.; Adams, Mason; Griset, Rich; Lake, Sydney (February 28, 2021). "Heavy hitters: The 2021 list of business leaders shaping Virginia". Virginia Business. "The Top 25 IT Cloud Services Executives Of 2021". IT Services Report. May 4, 2021. Guinto, Joseph (May 3, 2021). "2021 Tech Titans". Washingtonian. Book: Lawler III, Edward E.; Ulrich, Dave; Fitz-enz, Jac; Madden V, James C. (2004). Human Resources Business Process Outsourcing: Transforming How HR Gets Its Work Done. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 88–89, 134–138, 140–146. ISBN 0-7879-7163-4. (24 pages of coverage)

Extended content

Full articles:

Johnson, O’Ryan (September 13, 2019). "DXC Technology's New CEO: 5 Things You Need To Know About Mike Salvino". CRN.

(Note: This is 6 pages long)

O'Daniel, Adam (February 6, 2015). "Five steps for consulting success". Charlotte Business Journal.
Frinton, Sandy (January–February 2013). "Fresh Face: Mike Salvino: View from the C-Suite" (PDF). Pulse. International Association of Outsourcing Professionals. pp. 36–43.

(7 paragraphs preceding an interview)

Significant coverage within other articles:

"Debra Polishook named group CEO, Accenture operations". Post Online Media. June 3, 2016.

(7 paragraphs)

Bendor-Samuel, Peter (September 12, 2019). "DXC Technology Changes CEO". Forbes.

(7 paragraphs)

Profiles:

"Michael J. Salvino". Wall Street Journal.
Pierce, Freddie (March 8, 2011). "The Top Outsourcing Professionals". Supply Chain.
Andrews, Kate; McAteer, M. J.; Adams, Mason; Griset, Rich; Lake, Sydney (February 28, 2021). "Heavy hitters: The 2021 list of business leaders shaping Virginia". Virginia Business.
"The Top 25 IT Cloud Services Executives Of 2021". IT Services Report. May 4, 2021.
Guinto, Joseph (May 3, 2021). "2021 Tech Titans". Washingtonian.

Book:

Lawler III, Edward E.; Ulrich, Dave; Fitz-enz, Jac; Madden V, James C. (2004). Human Resources Business Process Outsourcing: Transforming How HR Gets Its Work Done. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 88–89, 134–138, 140–146. ISBN 0-7879-7163-4.

(24 pages of coverage)

The nominator WP:TAGBOMBed the article with five undiscussed tags three minutes prior to opening this AFD [3], in an apparent attempt to influence the outcome. Please also note that the only "Delete" vote in the prior AFD was inaccurate: it cited Google "newspapers", which has long been almost useless in searches – Elon Musk gets one only one result (a humor piece in Pittsburgh [4]), and Jeff Bezos gets only four results, all prior to 2008 [5]; the proper search for news items is Google "news" [6]. TerryBG (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In looking through the sources, it’s a mixed bag of promotional articles, names drops, and a few quality references. However, those few do add up to enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Further, DXC Technology is ranked 152 on the Fortune 500, so I agree with the above rationale that the subject meets WP:NBUSINESSPERSON as the CEO of a major company. It’s difficult to understand how the nominator could rationally and reasonably claim that the CEO of a Fortune 500 company with over 50,000 employees is a run of the mill businessman. While I too despise paid editing as a practice, it shouldn’t impact how we weigh and evaluate notability. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources highlighted above.DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added new secondary source to prove notability.--Anjliishtwal (talk) 08:05, 25 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. ✗plicit 03:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Éric Danty[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY - the Division 2 was not professional until 1993. Doesn't really pass WP:GNG either. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. There is plenty of coverage on the individual on the internet [7][8][9]. Alvaldi (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Alvaldi that sources show GNG is met. Giant Snowman 18:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - three reliable French news sources above giving in-depth coverage is enough for GNG in my view Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 good sources long after his playing time. I'd assume that there'd be more in inaccessible historic newspapers. Nfitz (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:13, 20 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 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tallaght FM[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus, but neither editor who argued for keep explained how it meets WP:NOTABILITY. I couldn't find a way it does - the coverage and significance aren't there. Boleyn (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, failing that, merge/redirect to CRAOL). Per WP:NRADIO, the notability of radio stations is often "established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming". In terms of the latter ("original programming"), while I found/added a small number of references to support the basic text/assertions, I could find nothing about the programming created/broadcast by the subject. In terms of the former ("large audience"), as part of the same WP:BEFORE exercise, I could find no refs to establish listenership or marketshare. In terms of the remaining criteria ("established broadcast history"), and while I appreciate that it's entirely subjective, I'm not sure that <10 years is an especially "established history". When compared to other small/long-established/community radio projects. I tend to agree with the nominator. I'm not sure the subject/title meets the criteria here. If we do retain the title, the (frankly very limited) supportable content could easily be covered in the CRAOL article. Guliolopez (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guliolopez.4meter4 (talk) 13:06, 23 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akif Rustamov[edit]

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

I'm aware I may be missing something due to linguistic and cultural differences, but I couldn't find evidence he meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of meeting WP:GNG, no references on article, My search did not find anything to add. The [https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akif_R%C3%BCst%C9%99mov_(alpinist) other language article is essentially the same as ours. Jeepday (talk) 15:59, 22 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 23:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Married Who?[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources (beyond reprints of press releases and database listings), does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 21:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable outside of primary sources Dexxtrall (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another non-notbale, routinely produced Hallmark Channel made-for-TV film. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:36, 21 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Lego Builder[edit]

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

Not seeing significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or content that satisfies WP:ARTIST Dumelow (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems to be alocal story about Carl Fielder, aka Enid Lego builder. Neither name returns significant coverage beyond local, which in this case seems to Oklahoma. There's a Tuulsa TV report, the same TV report played in Oklahoma City. Then there are a few local news reports, to go along with Facebook sourcing in the article. GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 05:33, 16 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Readdle[edit]

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

I've no doubt that the apps are noteworthy and they have their own pages, but the references for the company fails NCORP, just the usual advertorials, interviews with founders, announcements, etc. I am unable to locate any references that meet both WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND as per NCORP requirements. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company sourced to PR fluff Dexxtrall (talk) 11:26, 19 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 19:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William & Mary Tribe football, 1910–1919[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

These decade articles have been broken up into individual season articles, e.g. 1910 William & Mary Orange and Black football team, which now contain any meaningful, cited content present on the decade articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, delete the split These were far better off as decade articles. We now have ten completely unsourced articles instead of one. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, no they weren't. They were relic of older time on Wikipedia with lower standards. Makes no sense to have bundled decade articles when their William & Mary's contemporaries all have individual articles. Instead of moving us backwards here, you could help source the new articles, which give proper space for expansion. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with these articles is that unreferenced, they all violate WP:NOTSTATS. Better to keep them grouped until this is remedied. I don't think that's a backwards move at all. SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of these season articles in question here now have at least one reference. Many of them had multiple references before this nomination was made.Jweiss11 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And even unreferenced, there's nothing indiscriminate about these season articles. They are part series of season articles for William & Mary and hundreds of other comparable college football programs, all with notability well-established. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as these no longer serve any purpose. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per Jweiss11 & Ejgreen77. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And kudos to Jweiss11 for creating the season articles. Cbl62 (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As unnecessary, and I'm not sure what a target would be.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. These articles no longer serve a purpose since individual season articles were created. Frank Anchor^Talk 15:22, 22 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her Husband's Betrayal[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage, does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep the film is a relevant film. Bradford (Talk) 20:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant to what? It is lacking significant coverage from what I could find. Films need to have significant coverage to have a stand-alone article. BOVINEBOY2008 20:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Dexxtrall (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NFILM. LizardJr8 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no significant coverage of the film at all. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 20:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:29, 21 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 19:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yr. Robert Lalkovits – Axone[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability. A BEFORE brings up no coverage. Fails WP:GNG and ~~WP:CREATIVE~~ WP:MUSICBIO. JBchrch talk 19:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 19:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 19:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 19:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can tell, there are no reliable sources that have ever written about this person Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He probably didn't even get permission from the notable people whose songs he bootlegged and remixed. Note the four "references" currently in the article: some are dead and none are "official" despite what the text says. He is only visible in his own self-created social media sites and directories, and has been noticed by nobody else reliable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage and no evidence that he meets WP:MUSICBIO.Lesliechin1 (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Idunnox3 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a Hungarian myself, I say that he is not notable. And that title is just... bad. "Famous composer"? Where? I have never heard of him (although I am not too big on the genres he plays in). Couldn't find anything that establishes notability. He doesn't have an article on the Hungarian Wikipedia either (although that's not a reason, plus the Hungarian WP does not have articles on a lot of stuff).GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:53, 20 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 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Buchach and its Region[edit]

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

Per WP:NBOOK: Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about a book if it is not possible, without including original research or unverifiable content, to write an article on that book that complies with the policy that Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of work. No sources cited in the article besides the book itself, no results on Google Scholar, and not much on Google except Wikipedia mirrors. Rublov (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability has been established as per WP:NBOOK. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 05:02, 23 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 19:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vonny Sweetland[edit]

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

Once all the POV material and primary sources have been removed, doesn't look like there's enough here to satisfy notability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ BubbaJoe123456 I disagree. A lot of POV material did have to be removed, but the article itself was involved in what seems to be an editing war between two factions. This resulted in a lot of content (even some valid pieces that help with notability) being removed as well. I am happy to send you links that can be cited to help establish the page. The previous editors involved in the editing war should not be part of this process as they've proven an inability to be impartial when it comes to this page. Please advise of next steps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.222.94 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article subject has been interviewed a few times, including from several sources related to his recent political campaigns, but there does not appear to be significant coverage of him in those sources, even after sources were added by the account who uploaded the article's picture (the IP editor who commented above was blocked as a sockpuppet of that account). Two of the independent reliable sources that mention him outside of the context of his campaigns are about his time on a reality show that was cancelled before it aired, such as [10]. Sweetland is mentioned as alleging that the producers asked him to lie about his ethnicity and pick fights over his race. The campaign-related sources provide more coverage of him than that, but they mostly consist of interviews/quotes by him, rather than independent coverage. The most extensive coverage, from the Toronto Caribbean [11], does not look very reliable, as discussed on the article's talk page. I think this article subject may become notable in the future, but I do not believe they pass GNG at this point, and they do not qualify for WP:NPOL yet. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't seem like this will fit the criteria for notability, as per BubbaJoe123456. When sources are cleared, there isn't much in the article. It's possible that this can become an article again if they become a high-profile candidate or are elected; but, at this time, this isn't a situation where anyone running for any seat under any party line should have a Wiki article. Go ^Leafs Go 00:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO/WP:POLITICIAN. Now that all of the unencyclopedic claims and blatantly unreliable sources have been removed, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. There are trivial mentions in The Star and National Post, moderate coverage about events related to the subject at Toronto.com and Politics Today, and more substantial coverage of the subject at Toronto Caribbean. But that Toronto Caribbean source is local puff piece journalism, nothing that I would consider reliable. (Even if it were reliable, it's still a single instance of significant coverage.) I checked Google and can't find anything better. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has a blog and tried running for office but didn't make it. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in political party nomination contests, but nothing else here (not even in the pre-editwar versions) constitutes strong evidence of preexisting notability for other reasons inddependently of an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 20 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – Joe (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angadi Institute of Technology and Management[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and cites 10 sources, all unreliable/primary, in its 5 sentences after I axed the obvious promotion. dudhhr_Contribs 17:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 15 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald M. Anderson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF and WP:SIGCOV. It's possible he passes WP:NARTIST, but I was unable to verify the claims in the article in a WP:BEFORE search. 4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he meets WP:NARTIST. 30-linear feet of his papers are in the Archives of American Art[12], and the Museum of Wisconsin Art archive[13], 35 linear feet of his work and papers are at the The Newberry[14] (It is unclear if the material at the Newberry is a duplicate of the Archives of American Art, but either way, institutions don't collect these types of materials on an artist/illutrator's work if they do not have historical value. I was able to verify the collection of the Chazen Museum of Art[15] - Netherzone (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Meh. If this were deleted it would be no great loss. His papers are indeed in lots of good museums, and I managed to find a book review of one his calligraphy books. Very oddly though, I didn't see any images of his work as an artist online, other than the Chazen collection above. My take is that he's a non-notable visual artist who might barely meet our notability guidelines due to the many museums that hold his personal papers. 75% of the article should be cut, as it's unsourced and full of unverified exaggeration.--- Possibly (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added a second museum collection, the Museum of Wisconcin Art + three citations. Archive collections such as the Smithsonian Archives of American Art are selective and highly curated. The Newberry is nothing to sniff at either. That these two major archives have collected a total of 65 linear feet of his graphic works and papers is a significant indication of this person's importance. - Netherzone (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With the excellent improvements made by Netherzone and Possibly, I think we can now safely say that criteria 4 of WP:NCREATIVE has been established. As such, I am going to withdraw this nomination. Many thanks for taking the time to participate here and improve the article itself.4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 15 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 found references and consensus. Geschichte (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julio César Ramírez[edit]

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

Could potentially scrape by WP:NFOOTY by the skin of its teeth (even that's not sure), but completely fails WP:GNG. The consensus in this scenario is to delete. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL by a long way as per Football Database. In terms of sources, the Ovación source is really good. The only other source I can find is this routine transfer announcement. Maybe others will find some more in-depth coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Found him on soccerway, I am not sure is that five fully pro games? Govvy (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: - that's a different player. The subject of the article is a Uruguayan player born in 1974. His Soccerway page is empty. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

okay, cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - over 300 professional appearances - clearly meets NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Subject has more than 300 appearances in fully professional leagues, so would just about "scrape by WP:NFOOTY by the skin of [his] teeth", and the article already cites one lengthy piece from a Uruguayan national newspaper's sports website, which to me wouldn't indicate he "completely fails WP:GNG". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Govvy (talk) 10:09, 17 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 Anjunabeats. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjunabeats Volume 1[edit]

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

Has already been PRODded, the only mentions of this album I was able to find in reliable sources were passing mentions in articles discussing the series as a whole. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anjunabeats, and I suspect the same could be done for the remainder of this series. As I've stated in similar discussions, it's difficult to establish notability for individual albums in a compilation series – unfortunately, the UK Compilations chart has some gaps in it, but even so, many of this series of albums didn't chart at all, so there's nothing to say about them except a track listing. Richard3120 (talk) 15:25, 15 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) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A State of Trance 2004[edit]

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

Has already been PRODded, the only sources I was able to find are this review from PopMatters, and chart listings. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NALBUMS. The album has been reviewed by Popmatters (link), Remix (link), Soul Shine Magazine (link), and Toronto Lifestyle (link). There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It peaked at No.25 on the Billboard Top Dance/Electronic Albums in April 2005. Armin van Buuren is one of the top DJ's of the last 20+ years. Most his tracks and albums have probably charted in the EDM charts Lesliechin1 (talk)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Speedy Deleted by admin under G11 - Unambiguous Advertising (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 16:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emidao Shylla[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. In my mind, not eligible for A7 (opinions differ, it was nominated for A7 as I typed the AfD nom) as the article claims he had a "main supporting role". If we are to believe this, then the Thong long Nga brief appearance is verifiable yet he does not appear here. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:54, 15 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. Significant, independent coverage shown to exist. "No it's not" is not a strong argument against detailed evidence otherwise. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humans of Bombay[edit]

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

Advertisement of a photography website founded by a non notable person Karishma Mehta. do not satisfy WP:ORGIND. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search shows an opinion article and something from Forbes about it, both of which are in the references here, I think. The rest is just news articles that uses content from them, and they all just look to be routine coverage that only just mentions that they shared the image or video first, and they're all not actually newsworthy per se to begin with; looks like cutting-edge wholesome "news" "stories" reached India too. It seems to be a social media page, but that's it. AdoTang (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All are the junk sources. 1друг (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant coverage in independent and reliable sources about the website, its development, and its popularity, per WP:WEBCRIT, that can be used to expand the article, e.g. Being the humans of Bombay (The Indian Express, 2014), Meet the Human Behind the Popular ‘Humans of Bombay’ Page (The Better India, 2015), Her Parents Tried To Marry Her Off At 15, And She Said No. This Is Her Story. (MTV, 2015), From the heart, through a lens (The Hindu, 2016), Meet Karishma Mehta, the woman behind Humans of Bombay (Hindustan Times, 2016), Almost every photo has a common undertone of Mumbai: Karishma Mehta (Hindustan Times, 2016), Karishma Mehta, The Woman Behind Humans Of Bombay Facebook Page Gave A TEDx Talk About Her Failures At IIFT (India.com, 2017), How Humans of Bombay is helping a sex worker's daughter study at New York University (FirstPost, 2017), Karishma Mehta On How Humans Of Bombay Captures The Invincible Spirit Of The City (Verve, 2018), When the Humans of Bombay came to Chennai (The Hindu, 2018), Sidharth Shukla gets featured on Humans of Bombay, talks about his mother: ‘My mom was our rock’ (Hindustan Times, 2020), 82-yr-old gatekeeper of haunted Rajasthan village connects with his first love after 50 years. Viral story (India Today, 2021), This Bride Ditched The Lehenga & Wore a Pantsuit to Her Wedding, Humans of Bombay Shares Her Story (MSN/India.com, 2021) Beccaynr (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the provided by User:Beccaynr are not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject hence failed WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please be more specific about why each source fails GNG? The first few I looked at seemed ok, but you might be more familiar with these news sources than I am. pburka (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. fails WP:ORG. Just a promotional article. RationalPuff (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:WEB, This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if a form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself, should have an article on Wikipedia, and per WP:WEBCRIT, web-specific content[3] may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site[5] or trivial coverage [...], which may be why the related Humans of New York article exists. But it seems more relevant for this discussion that there are multiple, non-trivial published works independent of the website itself, as noted in my comment above, and per WP:INHERENTWEB, When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. To review sources per the applicable guideline, I offer the following source assessment table, with an emphasis on the significant and demonstrable effects of the website on culture, society, entertainment, etc:

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Being the humans of Bombay, (The Indian Express, 2014)	Discusses the beginning of the website, its early popularity, its development, and some of its themes, including social and political issues: "A case in point, their post of two men in an embrace with their quote: “Decriminalise Section 377”, after the Supreme Court, in a ruling in December 2013 upheld the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Their latest posts are themed around the elections."	✔ Yes
Meet the Human Behind the Popular ‘Humans of Bombay’ Page, (The Better India, 2015)	Discusses the beginning of the website, its early popularity, its development, and some of its philanthropic work, including, "She conducted a Facebook campaign with the aim of raising funds for an organization called Kranti that helps the daughters of sex workers in Mumbai. While the aim was to collect Rs. 5 lakhs, Humans of Bombay ended up collecting Rs. 6.5 lakhs in just one day."	✔ Yes
Her Parents Tried To Marry Her Off At 15, And She Said No. This Is Her Story. (MTV, 2015)	Includes "On Wednesday, August 12, Humans of Bombay -- the Indian version of photographer Brandon Stanton’s famous Humans of New York blog — posted a striking pic of a young girl who’s speaking out against child marriage. [...] The post has since gone viral, gaining over 60K likes. People from across the world asked how they can make the girl’s dream of becoming an Indian police service officer a reality. Humans of Bombay reports that she's supported by Aangan, a child protection organization," and additional WP:SECONDARY context and commentary on the significance.	✔ Yes
From the heart, through a lens (The Hindu, 2016)	Discusses the increasing popularity of the website, a philanthropic effort to raise funds for a child with blood cancer ("In the first 30 minutes, a lakh was raised. Over the next few days, Rs 10.31 lakh was donated by strangers who wanted her to be able to ‘give her board exams and dance without feeling weak.’"), the development of a related book, and direct discussion of its influence on culture and society, e.g. "For instance, it was on the Humans of Bombay page that celebrity hair stylist Sapna Bhavnani opened up about her gang-rape. Around 88,000 people came out in support of the post and it was shared almost 9,000 times. The influence of the blog was felt when news media ran the story and gave other women the strength to share their own stories of abuse. Another story that captured hundreds of hearts was about a single mother who believed she had married the man of her dreams, but instead faced an abusive marriage and a terrifying escape from her husband," and "The blog made it possible to talk about taboo subjects, and has also allowed people to reach out to one another. For instance, posts about alcoholism or depression are met with support and helpline numbers to combat the illness."	✔ Yes
How Humans of Bombay is helping a sex worker's daughter study at New York University, (FirstPost, 2017)	This article opens with a mention of the impact of Humans of New York and states, "One such initiative from India is already getting recognition for their work. The similarly-named ‘Humans of Bombay’ has been following the same model as ‘Humans of New York’, by covering people from all walks of lives and inviting them to share their stories," and concludes with "It is amazing to see the power of social media and how initiatives like ‘Humans of Bombay’ have used their popularity to help real people in need."	✔ Yes
When the Humans of Bombay came to Chennai (The Hindu, 2018)	Discusses the ongoing development of the website, its popularity, and its stance within culture and society, i.e. "The page has an underlying theme of being inclusive — of people from every strata of society, of all ages and sexuality."	✔ Yes
Sidharth Shukla gets featured on Humans of Bombay, talks about his mother: ‘My mom was our rock’ (Hindustan Times, 2020)	~ This article begins "Actor and Bigg Boss 13 winner Sidharth Shukla got featured on Humans of Bombay. For a special post on International Women’s Day, he talked about his mother and how she has always supported the family," and includes his statement, which includes, "I have always believed in the concept of equality between men and women. And there’s nothing a woman can’t do which a man can in this day and age."	~ Partial
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)).

These are not all of the sources available, and these are only English-language sources. Based on the popularity and significance of the website, it seems reasonable to assume that non-English sources also WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the references provided here do not pass WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is clear WP:ORGIND, i.e. Independence of the author (or functional independence) and Independence of the content (or intellectual independence) are met, especially without any specific objections raised to any of the sources. In addition, there are WP:MULTSOURCES that are reliable, offer WP:SECONDARY analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas, including WP:ORGDEPTH; in addition to WP:GNG, the source assessment table helps show WP:ORG notability is sufficiently supported for an article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a major point for notability (besides the reliable condition of the sources, well detailed by Beccaynr) is that it's India's largest blog. "That ain't beanbag", as Gandhi's British opposition used to say. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the source is independent if you read those quotes. Smartly, it is been marked as discussion where only an owner of Humans of Bombay are providing news. Claims like India's largest blog is awkward and nowhere related to notability. 1друг (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The table is a summary overview, and a closer review of the sources can show that the table includes quotes from independent and reliable journalists, offering WP:SECONDARY context and commentary that support notability per multiple Wikipedia guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per Beccaynr's source analysis. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:46, 26 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 14:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Srinivasa Mudaliar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. GermanKity (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources given are mere mentions of his name; next to no biographical information can be extracted from them and they do not contribute to him meeting WP:GNG. His office is not of an order that would see him meet WP:NPOL. I have not found additional substantial coverage. There exists more of the type of coverage already in the article. Hence, I would delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per Modussiccandi; the available sourcing does not constitute significant coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't qualify WP:NPOL. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sourcing doesn't indicate notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:43, 17 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 14:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Princess: Magical Dress-Up[edit]

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

With only one proper review from a non-notable source (the IGN link contains no content other than saying the game exists), this game has not had significant commentary written about it and does not satisfy WP:NVG. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 14:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 14:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 14:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching comes up with only one borderline RS but nothing else aside from basic database-related listings of this game. No WP:SIGCOV. --MuZemike 16:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Scholar returns just a single Korean paper which is open access but not OCRed so not translatable to judge the extent of the coverage. Books has one possible review here [16] but snippet view ruins the access and I cannot judge if this is SIGCOV or not. Right now it doesn't appear notable, but I am open to revisiting sources.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 18 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Stepelevich[edit]

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

Old Unreferenced BLP tagged in October 2017. The only external link appears to be an audio recording of a lecture by the subject. G-searches returned plenty of books *by* this person but none *about* this person. G-news and G-newspaper searches fetched up nothing from an RS that would confirm notability. Cheers,Baffle☿gab 02:37, 1 June 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 June 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep with a decent number of citations for a low citation field he seems to be close to WP:PROF#1 and possible WP:NPROF#8 due to his long-term editorship of The Owl of Minerva (journal) which seems to be a respected journal in the field. --hroest 15:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PROF#C8 for his long-term journal editorship and per WP:AUTHOR for the multiple reviews of multiple (but edited not authored) books. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:PROF & WP:AUTHOR 1друг (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep via WP:NPROF C8; the many reviewed volumes edited by the subject help support notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:25, 18 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Steiner[edit]

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

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in October 2017. The only external link provided is to the IMDB, which is not a reliable source for establishing notability of BLPs. A check on G-sites yielded nothing useful (to me – I don't read German) that could confirm notability. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:20, 1 June 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 June 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time that Wikipedia stopped being a mirror of IMDb. All statements on a biography of a living person need to be relaibly sourced, and since there is no reliable source at all this article needs to be blanked, thus deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a first reference, a 2012 newspaper summary of the subject's career. That and other available sources, such as this summary, indicate that his films have been shown at the Tate in London and the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris, though I would prefer to find more context on these and other exhibitions and the extent to which they may support the WP:NARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 16:02, 15 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 Hyères FC. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Gaby Robert[edit]

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

No indication of importance, fails WP:GNG and notability for stadiums and indoor arenas. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, per my comments at last AfD. Giant Snowman 13:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails on general and architectural notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could only find sources that merely show its existence, nothing suggests any notability. It even doesn't seem to be a stadium, but rather just a practice field. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Hyères FC.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to Hyères FC. Valid search term, but the team article also mentions the stadium and its capacity, so nothing else to merge. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 20 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. ✗plicit 03:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalimah Johnson[edit]

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

The first two refs are self-generated profiles. BLP. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs some work, but it appears WP:BASIC notability is supported. e.g. Kalimah Johnson: Helping Black women feel 'sacred, safe, revered' (The Detroit News, 2020), How Kalimah Johnson's SASHA redefines rape culture for women of color (Detroit Metro Times, 2018), Meet The Unsung Heroes of the #MeToo Movement: 'It's Powerful to Be Honored' (People, 2019), On The Ground: These Women Are On The Front Lines Combating Sexual Assault (Essence, 2018), Detroit advocate reflects on black women’s role in #MeToo and impact of R. Kelly series (Michigan Radio/NPR, 2019), Activists protest R. Kelly at Detroit's Little Caesars Arena: 'Black girls do matter' (NBC10, 2018), Is R. Kelly's time up? Movement takes aim at Chicago-born R&B singer (Chicago Tribune, 2018), Anger, disappointment over Cosby mistrial remains strong (Philadelphia Tribune, 2017), Ron Claiborne Visits His African Heritage (ABC, 2006), New days bang (Detroit Metro Times, 2005). Beccaynr (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per WP:HEY, the article has been substantially revised, including to incorporate information from sources listed in the above comment. Beccaynr (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She meets general notability guidelines; there are articles about her by secondary reliable sources.--Eastview2018 (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Useful and improvable —¿philoserf? (talk) 20:55, 17 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 Ateneo de Manila University#Libraries and museum. Though the library is discussed in the target article, anyone is free to add more content from the article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rizal Library[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Promo The Banner talk 12:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Ateneo_de_Manila_University#Libraries_and_museum as there's no sourcing found to indicate notability independent from the school. Star Mississippi 13:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Libraries and museum. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Libraries and museum. Since this clearly isn't a notable subject and there's no reason it can't just be mentioned in the main article about the university. Rarely does a school building need it's own article. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 21 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 13:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slamet Hermoko[edit]

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

Has never played at professional level, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, and lacks coverage for WP:GNG. I found two extremely trivial mentions; Madiun Today and Banjarmasin Post, both of which being local sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:36, 15 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 13:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korneles Budam[edit]

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

Despite the weak and technical passing of WP:NFOOTBALL with 40 mins of professional football, I found no significant coverage so WP:GNG does not appear to be met. An Indonesian search yielded nothing better than Tribuna and Football Database. Stats databases do not constitute significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY, and seems to have been reserve goalkeeper for a couple more games than the one he played in.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage on the subject. WP:NSPORT, which WP:NFOOTBALL is a part of, is very clear on the fact that regardless of how many professional games a player has played, he has to pass WP:GNG. The FAQ from the top of WP:NFOOTBALL clearly states as much:
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
Alvaldi (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per consensus that NFOOTY doesn't really cover marginal appearances. SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The data covered has been taken from non-reliable sites, does not follows all the norms. Lacks notability too.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 03:27, 21 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 12:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shankuraj Konwar[edit]

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

No indication of notability. fails WP:GNG, WP:NSINGER GermanKity (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SINGER RationalPuff (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attributes to qualify for WP:NMUSICIAN. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability, and article creator is on the verge of being blocked for advertising. Deb (talk) 12:32, 17 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 12:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artful BSC Bratislava[edit]

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

Not seeing any in-depth coverage for this beach soccer team. After a long search, I found a Nitra-based newspaper, which published a couple of articles about an annual beach soccer tournament that this team plays in here and here. I see no evidence that the amateur tournament, nor this team that participates in it for one day a year, is notable. The article itself states that beach soccer is barely ever played in Slovakia, which probably explains the lack of media coverage. I note that the Polish and Slovakian Wikipedia articles depend heavily on the same passing mentions and also sources like the club's own website and Facebook. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, beach soccer is too marginal to include articles on this level of the sport. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 22 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 12:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Saad (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

The article borders on being a CV at times but, more importantly, the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Sources cited are mostly self-published or unreliable and I'm not seeing how being one of the first Egyptians to be verified by Amazon is a real claim to notability. His political career doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL nor does he pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NJOURNALIST. Another in a long line of 'Jack of all trades' that isn't actually notable in any of his supposed fields. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since this AfD, the creator has removed the claim to being a politician Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:NAUTHOR. GermanKity (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject has not accrued the level of reliable, in-depth coverage required to meet WP:BIO. Most of the sources cited are in-passing in nature (links to certificates, Wikidata, an independently published book on Amazon, etc), and there is no coverage of the subject in reliable, third-party sources. A WP:BEFORE check turns up no obvious sources that could be added to the article, and so deletion on notability grounds is my call. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article makes no claim to notability and does not provide any sources towards WP:GNG (nor could I find any, only lots of articles about another journalist with the same name). - Tristan Surtel (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-- Dewritech (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nexus000 (talk) 10:00, 22 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Kight[edit]

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

Minor shorts, a character actor with a short 7-year career. Certainly non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable filmmaker with no significant coverage to be found. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:08, 15 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 11:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rekabet Records[edit]

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

This company's speedy deletion was fiercely contested back in 2008 and, honestly, the article probably should have been deleted back then. As far as I can tell, this record label only existed for a couple of years and has never had a notable artist on its roster, so I'm not really seeing any claim to importance under WP:NMUSIC here. The other way that this could be notable is if it meets our company notability criteria, found at WP:NCORP. Firstly, none of the references in the article actually address Rekabet Records in any depth at all and a WP:BEFORE search covering Google Books, Google, Google News, ProQuest and DuckDuckGo came back with no reliable sources on the company. It does not even look to pass WP:GNG, which is a much lower bar than NCORP. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the nominator's statements, and commend the nom for looking through the article history. I can't find any sources for this. It wouldn't surprise me if at some point someone wrote about this label because of the airplay, but I can't tell that anything independent has been written about the label to this point. Most of the claims ("surprise hit" "resoundingly successful") are unsourced, and the sources listed in this article are primary to the artists listed, and further are casual mentions. As a music researcher/discographer, I'm generally in favor of keeping record labels that have had an impact on music culture, and there is some indication this label had minor impact, but the article fails WP:V in most aspects aside from the 6-release discography. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provided sources are passing mentions, not about the label, but about the artists. Lesliechin1 (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:22, 21 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 11:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Kyiv[edit]

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

Not seeing enough non-trivial coverage to justify an article. WP:GNG concern. I've checked the articles in other language Wikis and found nothing better than a 2 min YouTube video, which is now dead, but apparently showed an interview with the president of this club. Other than that, we have a profile page at the local Beach Soccer website and a WP:BEFORE only shows passing squad list mentions like this, which is proof of existence but not proof of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 11:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:BEFORE has been done, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 16 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 List of floods#2020. czar 05:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 floods[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation page but I'm not sure what it's disambiguating. None of these entries are known as "2020 floods". There are no similar "2019 floods", "2018 floods", etc., articles, and its scope seems to be already covered by the article List of floods, which lists floods by year, and also by Category:2020 floods. Brycehughes (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, content is already covered in List of floods Mousymouse (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of floods per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The lists of floods in 2020 on both pages are the same so there's nothing to merge. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of floods. Redundant content fork but a reasonable search term, so I think a redirect to somewhere sensible is in order. firefly ( t · c ) 11:20, 15 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. czar 05:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SadGranth Sahib[edit]

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

This entry reads more like Sikh theology than an encyclopedic article. I went to see if editors at WikiProject Sikhism could help with it but that project is inactive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing salvageable there. Brycehughes (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low notability. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 17:22, 19 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparente Libertà[edit]

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

No credible sources available attesting to this song’s notability, songwriter themselves is non-notable, information contained in article is not verifiable in any of the sources cited, his song’s length is its sole reason for possible notability; even if verifiable, it no longer holds this record (if it ever held it), as Guinness World Records confirms^[1] the existence of another pop song which vastly outdoes the subject in terms of length. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the songwriter had his own page this song could be mentioned there, but it does not have sufficient notability in its own right. It got some basic mentions in the Italian media but little notice of lasting significance. Also, it was mentioned at the website of an organization called "World Records Academy" but I don't think that is equivalent to being named as the Guinness-style "world record" for longest song, so it is not notable for that reason as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I already voted above, but I must say that these relistings are odd. The nominator gave a solid reason to delete, and that was my vote with hopefully solid reasoning as well. There is no place to redirect because the songwriter does not have an article, so I don't see any doubt about a consensus to delete. Don't let this article sit around in "no consensus" purgatory. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doomsdayer and my own search, I found nothing to establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:48, 22 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 Ateneo de Manila University#Libraries and museum. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo Professional Schools Library[edit]

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

Average library that fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Libraries and museum. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:11, 19 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Ahuja (Musician)[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:GNG or any criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN. Itunes can't be considered a musical chart. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just a request before a consensus is reached on the article. Help improve the article if any of the Wikipedia standards aren't met. I have tried that the article complies with WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. I agree that iTunes isn't a chart but have cited 5 reliable source which are not press releases or blogs. Also, since I have seen this often come up in deletion discussions and talk pages, I would like to clear the air by hereby declaring that I am in no way related to the subject but have attended his show in India .Grieffindor (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a promotional article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. None of the criteria for musicians met. RationalPuff (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject has gotten some press coverage, but they are mostly interviews which are not independent or puff pieces such as mentioning his achievement as the first Indian musician to have a billboard in Time Square. None of it is in depth or independent enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Likewise, he hasn't yet achieved any of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 23 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mamitha Baiju[edit]

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

Non-notable Actor. Not enough lead roles to qualify for WP:NACTOR. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She had notable roles in multiple number of movies. The source in the article can verify this fact. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 10:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done news References is fixed, she is notable person.Chennai Passangai (talk) 12:47, 21 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. – Joe (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Oklahoma State Senate special election[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. There's nothing about this special election for a state senate seat that suggests it will be particularly noteworthy compared to other state senate elections. Plus, the article is titled and worded in a way that implies there will be several special elections for the same legislative body, only to focus on just one seat. Love of Corey (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are dozens of these every year across the country, and there appears to be no particular reason why this one is notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Can't find a suitable redirect as state legislature elections are typically not notable enough to cover on Wikipedia, even if it is a "special election." Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are articles for the 2020 state senate elections in 43 of the 50 states. If this is deleted, in the next election article the incumbent's name would not be the same as the winner of the last election but there would be no explanation. Peter James (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point. There's not really an elegant solution for now. For continuity's sake the article is probably a keep but I'd recommend a move back to 2021 Oklahoma Senate special election to keep with the naming conventions of the other state senate elections (e.g. 2020 Oklahoma Senate election and 2022 Oklahoma Senate election). It was moved to "state senate" for consistency with other pages but the move actually makes it less consistent with the other articles in the category. This would also be consistent with other state legislatures (e.g. 2020 Pennsylvania Senate election). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there are articles about Oklahoma State Senate elections this has to be included somewhere. It should probably be merged to 2021 Oklahoma elections when that article is created. Peter James (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously prodded this as individual state legislative seat races are generally not notable; dozens occur each year and don't need their own articles. Oklahoma is not holding statewide elections this year so there won't be a general 2021 article, but it could be mentioned with the 2022 Oklahoma Senate election as those articles typically cover the whole election cycle. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:39, 21 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 11:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Dohodongan Rambe[edit]

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

This amateur/youth footballer has still never played a game of football at the senior level according to Football Critic, Tribuna, GSA and Soccerway, so clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL. In terms of coverage, the article depends entirely on one local source, Tiraipesisir and a WP:BEFORE search did not yield any other sources giving Dongan more than a passing mention in a match report or squad list. WP:GNG uses the plural 'sources' so clearly one source showing decent coverage is not enough. Since the article is on his schoolboy and youth career, we also must consider WP:YOUNGATH, which requires coverage to be beyond WP:ROUTINE and excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. In my memory, we have only kept articles on NFOOTBALL-failing youth players when they have received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not follows the norms, is not notable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:55, 20 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karishma Mehta[edit]

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

Advertisement of a Non notable person. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Just a founder of a non notable Photography Website Humans of Bombay. GermanKity (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE and the multiple independent and reliable sources about her and her work that can be used to expand the article, e.g. Meet the Human Behind the Popular ‘Humans of Bombay’ Page (The Better India, 2015), From the heart, through a lens (The Hindu, 2016), Meet Karishma Mehta, the woman behind Humans of Bombay (Hindustan Times, 2016), Almost every photo has a common undertone of Mumbai: Karishma Mehta (Hindustan Times, 2016), Karishma Mehta, The Woman Behind Humans Of Bombay Facebook Page Gave A TEDx Talk About Her Failures At IIFT (India.com, 2017), People Are Inspired By The Woman Behind Humans Of Bombay Honestly Speaking About Her Failures (Buzzfeed, 2017), In 2 hours, Facebook post raises Rs 16 lakh for acid attack survivor, (Times of India, 2017), Karishma Mehta On How Humans Of Bombay Captures The Invincible Spirit Of The City (Verve, 2018). Beccaynr (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the references provided above by Beccaynr do not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:HEY, the article has been revised and expanded, and shows how WP:BASIC notability is supported by multiple independent and reliable sources that offer WP:SECONDARY context and commentary on Mehta, including her biography, education, and career beyond the Humans of Bombay website. Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and the WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time has permitted the development of an article that is about more than one event involving this high-profile individual. In addition, the sources support notability per WP:CREATIVE, including that she is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique with the Humans of Bombay website, and she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] [that has] been the primary subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles, although some of the sources that focus on the website are included in my comment in the Humans of Bombay AfD discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:GNG. The article has several references which independently discusses her life and work in fair depth. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Tayi Arajakate, Can you please explain on what ground you said it passes GNG. The sources have to be more than reliable in order to justify a keep !vote - which sources do you think show significant coverage? GermanKity (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GermanKity, The Better India and The Hindu articles clearly show significant coverage. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the revision of the article helps show how in addition to The Better India, 2015 and The Hindu, 2016, significant coverage is also available from The Hindustan Times, 2016, Verve, 2018, and Khaleej Times, 2018, due to the amount of encyclopedic content these independent and reliable sources support in the revised article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I had missed the Hindustan Times article, it is an example of significant coverage as well. I disincluded the other two, because they are interviews. Not that it matters, either way she has more than enough coverage to be considered notable. Also, good work on the article! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I appreciate your point - I had been thinking that I should have clarified my view about how Verve and especially the Khaleej Times, that while interviews, both include WP:SECONDARY commentary and context from the interviewer that support notability, at minimum per WP:BASIC. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims of notability on the basis of Humans_of_Bombay which has been already challenged Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Humans_of_Bombay. Overall fails WP:GNG. Just a promotional puff piece. RationalPuff (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources look good. Tone is neutral. pburka (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All the references provided here indicate the subject is the founder of a non notable blog website Humans_of_Bombay and that is not enough to justify WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, it's not clear that the blog is nonnotable, although I see that you also nominated its article for deletion. Secondly, the GNG doesn't care why someone or something is notable. It doesn't require any "justification" beyond significant coverage in reliable sources, which is achieved here. pburka (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Pburka (good sources, neutral tone). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 23 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 11:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 U21 WMF World Cup[edit]

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

Lacks notability. As evidenced by the reply by the article creator on Talk:2018 U21 WMF World Cup when explaining why they removed the Prod... Fram (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be some confusion as to whether it's U21 or U23 but, in both cases, I couldn't find anything Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable youth tournament. If there had been any useful content, I would have suggested merging to World Minifootball Federation, but there's nothing useful to merge. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just no notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:58, 22 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 Makruk#Cambodian chess. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ouk-Khmer (Hill's version)[edit]

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

As the article describes, this game doesn't really exist and was included in The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants by mistake. Actual Cambodian Chess is described at Makruk#Cambodian_chess.

The majority of text in this article is effectively an errata for The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, describing how it came to be included in that text. This effectively makes the subject of the article a minor aspect of the creation of a book we do not even have a dedicated article about.

I propose deleting this page about a non-existent entity, and summarising the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants mistake in one or two lines at Makruk#Cambodian_chess. LukeSurl^t c 10:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. LukeSurl^t c 10:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The nom is correct. This is an interesting chess trivia, but really niche - an entry in one book that got a one-page coverage in a non-notable chess magazine [17] (Chess Variant) published by a probably non-notable organization (British Chess Variants Society) and later discussed on a personal website [18]. Unless better sources are found, this is a story for the chess fandom wiki, but not for Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added a one sentence summary to Makruk#Cambodian_chess describing this "variant". --LukeSurl^t c 15:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sources appear to meet our sourcing requirements. Still, a redirect (with ideally a bit more than a sentence) might make sense given the nature of the situation. Hobit (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. It has an entry in a specialized encyclopedia as well as other sources. It's verifiable in terms of wikipedia's policies on sourcing. The criticisms laid out by the nominator seem to be based in WP:Original research, rather than in published criticism of the entry within The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- 4meter4, I strongly contend this claim of OR. The criticism of this entry in the first edition of The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants exists in the 2nd edition of The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and is followed up by the co-author of the 2nd edition at [19] and also at [20] solving the riddle of how it came to be so included. All of this is documented with citations in the article in this section. Quite simply, it is demonstrably true this game never existed, and is either the product of a mistake or a hoax. --LukeSurl^t c 08:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-check chess was closed as redirect to List of chess variants despite being documented in The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and others, as well as being widely played online. It seems incongruous to delete that while keeping an article on a non-existent variant. --LukeSurl^t c 08:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Per above.4meter4 (talk) 11:02, 23 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halala (Web series)[edit]

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

This film doesn't qualify WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. I had moved it to drafts so that it could be improved but the creator moved it back and called my move superfluous. Out of three sources, two are announcements and one is simply sensationalised content to gain attention. I couldn't find independent reviews of the film that would support notability. If someone is able to find those, please add. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE that would help this pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just another web series that exists. There is nothing to suggest its notable. No reviews received. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail GNG and there's nothing that helps it to meet WP:NFILM. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 04:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:28, 21 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 List of bus routes in London. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 123[edit]

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

Restored and reverted several times for lack of notability, only recently restored leading to an edit war between multiple users (and the editor who restored it most recently even recommended bringing to AfD to resolve the dispute). Article is still not notable even with added content, and still lacks significant sourcing that is non-routine (such as route changes and contract tendering). Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is a distinct lack of sources to indicate independent notability, fails WP:GNG. The redirect to the list article works fine.Polyamorph (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in London. As I have said at previous London bus route AfDs, any route that doesn't have any particular claim to fame or infamy (e.g. well-publicised and covered opposition to its introduction or a change in its routing, notable events during its run) should be redirected. I stand by that rationale. firefly ( t · c ) 11:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London, as was previously done. Fails WP:GNG, and as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Thryduulf:, @AlgaeGraphix:, and @11Expo: who participated in a recent London bus route AfD. Thank you for nominating for deletion rather than redirecting again, @Ajf773:. NemesisAT (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on canvassing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please can you link to the discussion you are referring to, is this not canvassing? Polyamorph (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hello, the discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 167 and no, I don't believe my comment violates the canvassing guidelines as I pinged all voters in the discussion (excluding those already involved in this one) and kept my message neutral. NemesisAT (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the link. It is a blatant violation of WP:CANVAS given every one you pinged !voted the same way in the last discussion, except Ajf773 who initiated both AfDs. Polyamorph (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] WP:CANVAS does state "Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances.", granted it was a ping rather than a talk page message however I think it's fair to say that those interested in the previous AfD which took place only a month ago would also be interested in this one which concerns a very similar article to London Buses route 167. NemesisAT (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] You haven't notified "all sides" though. You have pinged users all of whom !voted keep in a previous discussion about a similar topic. This is canvassing users from "one side". Polyamorph (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] They notified everybody in that discussion who hadn't already participated here. The only bolded !votes in that discussion other than the nominator (who is also the nominator here, and so obviously already aware) were 3 "Keep" and 1 "don't delete" (the latter mine). The only other commenter was Elmidae who was explicitly neutral simply saying that they didn't think that article was suitable for prodding or speedy deletion. So there was only one "side" that could be notified. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Then they should not have been notified, clearly.Polyamorph (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] The editors that participated in that other discussion didn't need to be pinged though, they would have found this one either way as the same deletion sorting was applied. Ajf773 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on canvassing

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please can you link to the discussion you are referring to, is this not canvassing? Polyamorph (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 167 and no, I don't believe my comment violates the canvassing guidelines as I pinged all voters in the discussion (excluding those already involved in this one) and kept my message neutral. NemesisAT (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It is a blatant violation of WP:CANVAS given every one you pinged !voted the same way in the last discussion, except Ajf773 who initiated both AfDs. Polyamorph (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS does state "Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances.", granted it was a ping rather than a talk page message however I think it's fair to say that those interested in the previous AfD which took place only a month ago would also be interested in this one which concerns a very similar article to London Buses route 167. NemesisAT (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't notified "all sides" though. You have pinged users all of whom !voted keep in a previous discussion about a similar topic. This is canvassing users from "one side". Polyamorph (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They notified everybody in that discussion who hadn't already participated here. The only bolded !votes in that discussion other than the nominator (who is also the nominator here, and so obviously already aware) were 3 "Keep" and 1 "don't delete" (the latter mine). The only other commenter was Elmidae who was explicitly neutral simply saying that they didn't think that article was suitable for prodding or speedy deletion. So there was only one "side" that could be notified. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should not have been notified, clearly.Polyamorph (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editors that participated in that other discussion didn't need to be pinged though, they would have found this one either way as the same deletion sorting was applied. Ajf773 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. I've not looked (and don't currently have time to look) in detail at the article but as with every single other article about a bus route in London* that verifiably exists or existed there is never a justification for deletion. If the route is notable (some are, some aren't) then it should have an article. If it isn't then it should be a redirect to wherever the most content about it is, which will usually be the list of of London bus routes articles - when some members are a set are notable, all members of the set are plausible search terms. (*This also applies to places outside London where a similar list exists). Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Thryduulf (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

Discussion on canvassing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was not canvassed. I was alerted to the existence of this discussion with a neutral notice where everybody who !voted in a recent discussion about a very similar topic but who had not !voted here was also notfied. I would also have found it on my own through the London Transport article alerts, albeit a few hours later. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] It was blatant canvassing regardless of whether you would have seen it or not. Polyamorph (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] For the reasons above, it was not blatant canvassing - if participants had been pinged selctively or the message was non-neutral you would have an argument. Neither of them are true though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] The participants were pinged selectively, from a one sided AfD (why choose this AfD and not a different AfD in which the result was not Keep). And not all participants of that discussion were pinged by the way. It is about as blatant as you can get, even if it was unintended. Polyamorph (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Who else could have been pinged from that discussion? Notifying everybody (who is not already aware) offering an opinion in the most recent AfD about the most recent discussion about the same type of article is explicitly permitted by policy. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] One user who participated in that discussion was not pinged. Why ping anyone at all? And why not pick a discussion in which the result was not keep? Polyamorph (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] I have been unable to find explicit mention of notifying everybody in a recent similar AfD in WP:CANVASS. What is written, however is : The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. No users should have been pinged at all if a non-partisan audience was not available, the policy is explicit on this (it is in the table of appropriate and inappropriate canvassing) and the pings can be construed as an attempt to increase the number of keep leaning !votes. I am certain any uninvolved admin will agree. Polyamorph (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] They weren't selected based on past opinion, they were pinged because they participated in a discussion regarding another article I expanded that went to AfD. The user not pinged stated they didn't want to take a side so why would they be interested in this case? NemesisAT (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] I can believe that it may have been unintentional, but notifying a partisan audience violates WP:CANVAS. There is zero point in you both trying to argue otherwise. Sometimes it is better to graciously acknowledge mistakes rather than dig in. Polyamorph (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Polyamorph, take your own advice and stop whingeing. Either drop it or take it to WP:ANI. Either way, stop beating a WP:DEADHORSE. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] And how exactly does this involve you? Polyamorph (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] AlgaeGraphix you have literally proved the sole point I have been trying to make, you would not be here if you had not been WP:CANVASSED. I rest my case Polyamorph (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] That's quite the accusation, putting aside whether or not AlgaeGraphix should have been pinged, you have absolutely no idea what brought them to this discussion. It is fair that one who is interested in a bus route Afd from a month ago would still be interested now. NemesisAT (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that would be possible but come on, the canvasser and two canvassed users here, now attacking me. What's more likely. I'll let the closing admin decide.Polyamorph (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] People disagreeing with you is not the same as people attacking you. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] No, but telling me to stop whinging (when I'm replying to you) and trying to gaslight the situation is.Polyamorph (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] I've asked at AN/I for an uninvolved administrator to take a look at the various allegations made here [21] as I'm getting completely fed up of the false accusations. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on canvassing

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was not canvassed. I was alerted to the existence of this discussion with a neutral notice where everybody who !voted in a recent discussion about a very similar topic but who had not !voted here was also notfied. I would also have found it on my own through the London Transport article alerts, albeit a few hours later. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was blatant canvassing regardless of whether you would have seen it or not. Polyamorph (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons above, it was not blatant canvassing - if participants had been pinged selctively or the message was non-neutral you would have an argument. Neither of them are true though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The participants were pinged selectively, from a one sided AfD (why choose this AfD and not a different AfD in which the result was not Keep). And not all participants of that discussion were pinged by the way. It is about as blatant as you can get, even if it was unintended. Polyamorph (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who else could have been pinged from that discussion? Notifying everybody (who is not already aware) offering an opinion in the most recent AfD about the most recent discussion about the same type of article is explicitly permitted by policy. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One user who participated in that discussion was not pinged. Why ping anyone at all? And why not pick a discussion in which the result was not keep? Polyamorph (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find explicit mention of notifying everybody in a recent similar AfD in WP:CANVASS. What is written, however is : The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. No users should have been pinged at all if a non-partisan audience was not available, the policy is explicit on this (it is in the table of appropriate and inappropriate canvassing) and the pings can be construed as an attempt to increase the number of keep leaning !votes. I am certain any uninvolved admin will agree. Polyamorph (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't selected based on past opinion, they were pinged because they participated in a discussion regarding another article I expanded that went to AfD. The user not pinged stated they didn't want to take a side so why would they be interested in this case? NemesisAT (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can believe that it may have been unintentional, but notifying a partisan audience violates WP:CANVAS. There is zero point in you both trying to argue otherwise. Sometimes it is better to graciously acknowledge mistakes rather than dig in. Polyamorph (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polyamorph, take your own advice and stop whingeing. Either drop it or take it to WP:ANI. Either way, stop beating a WP:DEADHORSE. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly does this involve you? Polyamorph (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AlgaeGraphix you have literally proved the sole point I have been trying to make, you would not be here if you had not been WP:CANVASSED. I rest my case Polyamorph (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite the accusation, putting aside whether or not AlgaeGraphix should have been pinged, you have absolutely no idea what brought them to this discussion. It is fair that one who is interested in a bus route Afd from a month ago would still be interested now. NemesisAT (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be possible but come on, the canvasser and two canvassed users here, now attacking me. What's more likely. I'll let the closing admin decide.Polyamorph (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People disagreeing with you is not the same as people attacking you. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but telling me to stop whinging (when I'm replying to you) and trying to gaslight the situation is.Polyamorph (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at AN/I for an uninvolved administrator to take a look at the various allegations made here [21] as I'm getting completely fed up of the false accusations. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find more coverage such as this account of its special service on its 50th anniversary. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a route with a sixty year long history, dating back to the withdrawal of trolleybuses. That makes it notable IMO. It has developed, with night buses being added to the route. I completely disagree that a route change is "routine", it certainly isn't routine to people who rely on public transport! The article has been improved since being nominated for deletion and should now be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination, and specifically as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a bus timetable service. The edit warring and adjacent tomfoolery also suggests we've entered the realm of the unnecessary. doktorb _words^deeds 22:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no timetables in this article. In what way is it acting as a "bus timetable service"? NemesisAT (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, buses and their routes are anything but "unnecessary" to those that use and rely on them. What is "unnecessary" to you may be vital to others and is not grounds for deleting an article. NemesisAT (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a charleston we've danced before. Bus routes almost always fall foul of Wikipedia policies because they are trivial, because they are routine and/or because they're used to hide what they really are: an attempt at smuggling an enthusiast's blog into an encyclopedia. We had it with the TV nerds who wanted to keep channel guides on here. Someone says above "it's not routine to people who rely on public transport" which gives the game away. If we allow a bus route on Wiki, then we have to include where the route goes, and how long (in miles and time) and on it goes until we get another route, and another. It slowly and unofficially grows its real purpose. So maybe there was not, strictly speaking, a timetable on this article. But as good as an end-to-end route description is, and we all know why doktorb _words^deeds 23:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bus routes are not "trivial". This article does not cite any enthusiast's blog. I do not write blog posts. What exactly is the problem with describing where a bus goes, similarily to where a railway line goes? As for miles and time, that ins't included in this article. Your comments give me the impression you simply don't like bus information being documented on Wikipedia, and that you wish to delete this article because of what it may turn in to one day, rather than what it is now. NemesisAT (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That sounds a lot like "I dislike the type of content that somebody might potentially add to this article in the future." rather than a reason why the current content is not encyclopaedic. It also fails to address why the page, if it isn't encyclopaedic as a stand-alone article, would be deleted rather than redirected to the list. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of London bus routes, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTROUTINE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the route changes or the introduction of night services is routine. From reading WP:NOROUTINE, it seems there isn't a clear definition. I'm also not sure how this falls foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. NemesisAT (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Came here from ANI, in case anyone's wondering. There's not enough independent coverage of this route for it to qualify for a stand-alone article. (In terms of the canvassing thing, I think it's obviously inappropriate per WP:VOTESTACK's bit here: In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. but there's also a high likelihood these users would have stumbled upon this article in the first place, so I'm really not that fussed.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well this isn't a reconsideration of a previous debate, and the notifications were sent to everybody who expressed any viewpoint who wasn't already aware so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those any viewpoints being Keep, Don't Delete, Keep, and Keep. Polyamorph (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because those are the only ones expressed in the AfD other than the nominator, who as the nominator here was obviously already aware. It was literally impossible to notify anybody expressing a different view because they don't exist. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly the problem. Sorry to take this down a tangent. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the mentions I made were in line with the guidelines but others disagree. I can see how it can be argued either way. That being said it looks like this AfD will go your way so I don't see much point in discussing this further. NemesisAT (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NemesisAT. There was never any suggestion it was intentional. Polyamorph (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (came from the ANI) I see no evidence that this particular route is independently notable enough for a stand-alone article as above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a bit of merge (came from the ANI too). The topic fails WP:GNG. No objection to merging nor to soft deletion by redirecting without any hard deletion involved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be happy with some merging to the target, since there is some sourced content, and I am not against the soft redirect. Polyamorph (talk) 11:17, 18 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of peace activists[edit]

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

The list violates WP:OR. No criteria has been established that how an activist can be described as 'peace activist'. Is there any list for 'war activists'? The list seems pretty useless and appears to be a type of free for all list. Tessaracter (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:OR and WP:NOPAGE. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list corresponds to pages such as Anti-war movement and Peace movement. A good example of a peace activist who appears on the list is Anna B. Eckstein (right). She campaigned for peace ahead of the First World War, collected millions of signatures and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Per WP:BLUE, this is not OR. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Anti-war activists exist. List are always more useful than categories. Some people are notable for being peace activists, that what they get coverage for. Dream Focus 04:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nom asked for the list of "war activists", not "anti-war activists". Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't responded to that. Peace and anti-war are the same thing, so we have a category for this already. Dream Focus 12:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I concur with the nominator's reasoning about the topic being badly defined. Were the architects behind Pax Romana peace activists? What is even an activist? Geschichte (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the lead in the two minutes between this and your last edit? A clear in-depth definition of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any rebuttal for the case of WP:OR. This list is far from being encyclopedic and will never come to include all possible names. If we strictly dedicate the list for those who were significantly peace activists, then the list will be not needed for being too small. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it original research? Search for reliable sources for any name with "peace activist" and you get results easily. Example: https://cse.google.com/cse?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403:galkqgoksq0&cof=FORID:13%3BAH:left%3BCX:Wikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22List+of+peace+activists%22 Dream Focus 12:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a popular article with specific defining characteristics outlined in its lead and on the pages of its entries. Deletion arguments seem to have been reasonably countered by Dream Focus. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per Dream. As a side note, I'll address the nom's Is there any list for 'war activists'? query. The short answer is no. Heres' the deal with war activism. Most effective pro war arguments are made behind closed doors, as the sort of realpolitik / geopolitical calculation they depend on doesn't tend to be popular with the public. Granted, even since ancient times there have been morality based arguments for war, e.g. certain types of conservatives argued that war is good for building character. A few politically neutral scholars have argued that war is good for spurring technological intervention, though it would maybe be a stretch to call them activists. From both politically right & left POVs, several have argued that war is sometimes justified to prevent atrocities. Good Tony Blair is the most prominent recent example of this with his 3 great speeches around the turn of the century, which help build relatively wide support for his intervention in Bosnia and to an extent, later the War on Terror. But here's the thing. I'm not aware of any source that covers these various types of "war activists" as a group. So there's a case not to have a list article per WP:OR. Whereas, obviously there are abundant sources about peace activists, a vastly more popular topic than its opposite, at least here in the 21st century. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep per Dream Focus and others. Every individual on this list is sourced as a peace activist (as defined in the lead), either in his or her own article (nobody is listed here unless they have their own Wikipedia article), or explicitly in this list article. There is no OR anywhere. --NSH001 (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While OR does present issues in building such a list, I think they aren't insurmountable. The answer is addressing issues as they arise on the talk page, and working towards workable solutions rather than deletion.4meter4 (talk) 02:13, 23 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. Was also eligible for G5 speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Excel23. MER-C 17:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Heald[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has serious BLP problems. Though there are lots of references, many of them such as this don't actually mention the subject, or don't have enough information in them to easily identify and back up the claims cited. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I feel it needs to be rewritten somewhat to be less promotional, but the subject seems to have impact on her industry, peeer reviews, and more that a few citations.174.48.198.196 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I tried rewriting the article, and searched for additional sources, but no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Beccaynr (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. I had a look for sources, but I think this is unsalvageable, hence starting the AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:43, 16 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. – Joe (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo de Manila University Press[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only based on related sources. The Banner talk 08:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 1st source in the article seems reliable. It was awarded by the National Book Awards as the publisher of the year for 3 straight years. It topped last year's Aklatan book fair. It launched 21 books in Harvest 2016. With these reliable sources, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per User:Superastig, though it would be better to have additional sources. BD2412 T 00:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Superastig.4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 23 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 Big Bash League#Tournament season and results. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Bash League wooden spoons[edit]

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

Unnecessary list article, to say simple we really don't need this per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTDATABASE. No demonstrable significance from reliable sources, that this type of list really needs to exist. We don't have separate articles for the teams acquiring last position of other franchise leagues. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 06:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 06:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 06:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 06:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "shaming" of Wooden spoon 'winners' is an integral part of Australian sport and this article fits within the series of Wooden spoon articles on the topic. If it's appropriate, the list can be modified to include other areas of Australian cricket culture (say the Sheffield Shield) where this is also tallied. Storm machine (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ yes some sources use the term wooden spoon, but no evidence this list passes WP:GNG. Convert the useful information from sources into the articles about the teams. I'm aware there are similar articles for some other sports, but they are all sourced to not many sources, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to merge into Big Bash League#Tournament season and results, as well as adding some of the sourced text content to Wooden spoon (award)#Big Bash League (cricket), both of which could benefit from a paragraph or two of text about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to an appropriate article on the Big Bash if it can't be sourced, wooden spoons are indeed suitable for an encyclopaedia if not a stand-alone article (at least in Australia if not elsewhere.) SportingFlyer T·C 08:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourced content to Big Bash League#Tournament season and results where it can be easily added. Note to the nominator - WP:LISTCRUFT is not Wikipedia policy, it's someone's essay, so it shouldn't be cited as a reason for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this doesn't warrant a standalone article and allowing it to remain as a redirect will encourage its re-creation. Feel free, if you must, to have a very short section on this non-notable thing somewhere else, but it strikes me as dubious at best and actually rather distasteful at worst. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: do you find the Lanterne rouge also distasteful? The wooden spoon is traditional in Australian sport. List articles already exist for Australian rules football and rugby league, this list extends that tradition to our newest mass-market sporting league. Storm machine (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lanterne Rouge is an achievement though. You have to survive within a set time percentage everything that the Tour throws at you and get to the end. And the article is about the term and the idea rather than specifically about a list of teams that were worst in their rather small league. That's not an achievement. The article we have on wooden spoon is the closer comparison to Lanterne rouge. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Media reports from every season has the wooden spoon race as the thing to avoid, with coaches getting the axe should their team finish last. I’ll source some more info for the summary, but I strongly feel like this article, as well as others regarding Australian sports wooden spoon lists are valid and should be maintained. Sooner or later the table of BBL champions will be its own article, merging this list into that part of Big Bash League#Tournament season and results seems short-sighted. Storm machine (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Storm machine: no evidence that it passes WP:GNG and needs a separate list article. Would though agree to merge into an appropriate article per above comments, but Blue Square's comment also seems plausible. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden spoon mentions include [22] [23] [24] - just dumped in the first three sources that worked (Adelaide's website is pay-blocked), but the concept's definitely notable enough for a list. I could not find a list anywhere specifically though in 30 seconds of trying. SportingFlyer T·C 12:28, 15 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 List of Batman supporting characters#Supporting characters. Feel free to merge primary sources from article. czar 05:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Carter Nichols[edit]

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

Minor comic book supporting character, plot summary referenced to comic books, prod removed without an edit summary. PROD was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." Let me quote from one book [25]: "Only aficionados of Batman trivia would have heard of Professor Carter Nichols". Wikipedia should not be a repository of trivia for "aficionados", that's what Fandom/Wikia is for. (Maybe some fan would like to copy some of our content to https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Carter_Nichols_(New_Earth), our entry is a bit longer, I think, that fandoms...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 15 June 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} 05:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 15 June 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} 05:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Batman supporting characters. The character already has an entry there and this is a natural alternative to deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman supporting characters. This character is linked inline from 8 non-list articles, which is just over my personal threshold of "notable within the fiction". The brief description already present in the target list is sufficient coverage. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with supporting characters section of the List of Batman supporting characters page while saving any important sessions and media appearances in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. That is what I ask for the closer of this AFD. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Subject doesn't warrant their own article, but it should be incorporated into list of Batman supporting characters. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A few years ago, there was a short lived but professional comics magazine (Comics Now? I’m unsure of the title) that did have an article on this character. I can’t find my issues, and may have gotten rid of them, and there may not have been much to it beyond plot synopsis, and in any event wouldn’t be enough to pass WP:GNG on its own, but might be a start to sourcing the article. Until then, I’d support a merge or redirect. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Killer Moff: do you mean this? It's from 2007. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one! Thanks! (wow 2007, I'm older than I thought. Bah) Probably won't add much, but I thought it might spark a memory in someone. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:54, 21 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 16:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amirids (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary per WP:2DABS and PROD declined. The only two pages are Amirids and Banu Amir. The Saqaliba are never called Amirids. Srnec (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: The saqaliba are infact often confused with amirids propper, disambiguation doesnt mean words are synonomous, it is when there is confusion. i am not denying the saqaliba are practically speaking, amirids, but by blood they are not and some people end up thinking they're the same exact thing.AbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2021 (CLT)

The Saqaliba and the Amirids are two totally different things. Some Saqaliba were Amirids, but not all. And not all Amirids were Saqaliba. These terms have totally unrelated meanings. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: when did I say they are? the disambiguation page is for literally, disambiguation, some people still confuse both, or atleast parts of both, the amirid saqaliba are the most well known saqaliba out thereAbdurRahman Abdulmoneim (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2021 (CLT)

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and TWODABS. Dab pages are not remedies for potentially confused people. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 15 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yafet Dawit[edit]

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

BLP of a college sportsman whose claim to notability is that he broke the Eritrean national record in his sport. I don’t think breaking individual country records establishes notability, especially when the athlete is not actually competing for their country. Mccapra (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree, I believe that breaking a national record in his sport at the age of 18 years old establishes notability, and the fact that there is only evidence of him competing in three complete seasons in his lifetime only adds to that claim. Being that at such a young age he is not only a division one athlete but also a national record holder in his event group should be enough to be considered "notable" within his sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekeletsege (talk • contribs) 05:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sports articles must still meet GNG, regardless of how impressive an athlete's performance is. There does not appear to be SIGCOV of this individual from multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources. JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 23 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 03:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Crossing, Virginia[edit]

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

Topos show a spot where a road crosses the Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac railroad, with basically nothing there. Newspapers.com brings up a passing mention about a train wreck occurring near here in 1903 and some passing mentions about a body being found here in 1931. Beyond that, I can get some trivial appearances in USGS directories and a passing mention in a murder novel about someone dumping a body here. Likely a rail feature, no positive evidence that WP:GEOLAND is met, and WP:GNG is not. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the name suggests, it's just a grade crossing. No evidence of any "community"--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 14:29, 15 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. Nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yemi Adenuga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ENT; she was elected to a local council, and I couldn't even find her on IMDb. The notable thing about her is that she's the first black woman to be elected to a county council in Ireland, plus she's an immigrant, both of which is pretty dope. She is borderline notable (in terms of press coverage), and I'm eager to hear what you think.

Most sources I've found: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] SWinxy (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC based on the sources in the nom, including significant, in-depth coverage: Yemi Adenuga and Uruemu Adejinmi: Making a mark in Irish politics (Irish Times, 2021), Reality TV star becomes first black woman and first migrant elected to Irish county council (Irish Central, 2019), and more than trivial mentions: Irish election: Winners and losers take centre stage (BBC, 2019), Meath County Council: Star of Gogglebox takes seat in Navan (Irish Times, 2019), Gogglebox Ireland's Yemi Adenuga on working in Irish politics (RTE, 2021), The Floating Voter: New Irish councillors demand action after racism on campaign trail, (Independent.ie, 2021), Five black mothers unite to stamp out racism in Ireland (Irish Mirror, 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also: Yemi Adenuga: 'Racist trolls said I wasn’t Irish and demanded money’ (Independent.ie, 2021), The BIG Interview; Yemi Adenuga; Ireland’s racist problem begins at home (Meath Live, 2021), ‘I was insulted so many times, the easiest thing to do would have been to give up and quit’ (Meath Chronicle, 2020), Googlebox Ireland star Yemi Adenuga calls on Noel Grealish to apologise for 'inflammatory comments' (Irish Mirror, 2019), 'I won't put up with any bullsh*t from a man telling me I'm a token seat' (Independent.ie, 2020), Yemi Adenuga: 'We need more minority voices in Irish politics' (FM104, 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per the sources identified by Beccaynr and other sources identified in my BEFORE search, subject meets the GNG. Being a "first black woman and first migrant elected to Irish county council" is a significant claim to notability. Princess of Ara_(talk) 11:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:HEY, this article has been revised and expanded, which helps emphasize her notability not only per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, but also WP:NPOL, because she is a [m]ajor local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage, i.e. per footnote 8, A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, including due to her local and national anti-racism advocacy, which has been WP:SUSTAINED since she was elected. Beccaynr (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. What you've done is incredible. I fully expected this to be a possibility (nominated; consensus would be keep). Glad that nominating it gave love and attention to it.

I'm all for Keep. SWinxy (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on improving the article! @Beccaynrand well done to you @SWinxy for being willing to vote keep. Princess of Ara_(talk) 07:09, 16 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. czar 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semen Hitler[edit]

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

I don't think having a strange name is a good enough reason for a WIkipedia article. It doesn't help that the main source states that his first name is "Semyon", not "Semen" so I question the total accuracy of this article. There are some copyright issues with this piece, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracing back mentions of this individual, I found that an article on him has already been deleted before under his actual name via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semyon Hitler. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and per the previous deletion discussion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Creator's account has been blocked FWIW. Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not notable, and the claim of "unusual name" is at best dubious going on the sources. firefly ( t · c ) 11:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The biggest concern is the copyright issues, which when severe could allow an article to be db'ed. --littleb2009 (^she/_her) (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the confusion over Semyon/Semen is over the translitation of Russian and Ukrainian. "Semyon" is the transliteration of the Russian "Семён". The same name in Ukrainian - "Семен" - transliterated into English is Semen. No error or attempt to deceive, just a question of which language you make the root to transliterate from. Given he was from the Ukrainian SSR, using Ukrainian is not unreasonable. "Гитлер" would transliterate differently incidentally. If we used the Russian version, he would be "Semyon Gitler". The previous article title of "Semyon Hitler" is a nonsense mishmash from two languages. Spokoyni (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was primary source used for the article and they translated it as Semyon Hitler. So, there were questionable sources as well. One of the reasons the page creator was blocked was his editing focus on penises was seen as trolling so I assumed he came up with "Semen" on his own. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Hot take: this article's highly "unusual name" might be enough to make it noteworthy–– for instance, many of the pages listed in WP:UA are noteworthy for this criteria. Just my two cents, though. CitizenKang414 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Of course, the article needs to be heavily overhauled, in style and content as well as sourcing, but it seems to me that under WP:N, the topic has been covered enough in the (Russian-language) literature to warrant keeping the page up. Aadim2 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of significant coverage. This is the policy reason that also caused Namibian politician Adolf Hitler Uunona to not get an article even though his name and face reached news outlets all over the world recently. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As I said last time, this person has only been discussed by trivia and Russian state propaganda websites. There are no other secondary sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An editor has moved this page to Semyon Hitler and turned Semen Hitler into a redirect. I'm not sure how that affects this deletion discussion under the original name or whether the article should be moved back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 22 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.