The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gren (band)[edit]

Gren (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Easily fails WP:GNG and with only one low-charting song on a secondary chart, likely fails WP:MUSICBIO, but without RSes, there's nothing to keep here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the nominator notes, the band had a charting single, which meets WP:MUSIC. We do not completely lack for RSes; there's a smattering of bio info for every artist in Joel Whitburn's books, and AMG's got coverage (bio, review); since this is a 1990s band, I imagine much of the bulk of RS coverage will be in offline sources. Chubbles (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BAND criteria #2 based on a Billboard charting single as shown on their website. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I do not see any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I do not see anything notable about this band. I do not consider charting on the Mainstream Rock radio chart to establish notability ('national chart', to me, would indicate charting on the primary chart, I do not think this is addressed in the guidelines). Did not release two or more records on a major label (had one album and an EP 12 years after disbanding?). Fails GNG and NMBIO in my view. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's long been established that genre- and market-specific charts in large and diverse countries (such as the US) count fully as much as the Hot 100 for determining notability. Releasing two albums on a major label helps with WP:MUSIC, but the lack of it does not preclude meeting the guideline; there's no reason why two albums on a major label should be a prerequisite. Chubbles (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case. They are never automatically notable just because they charted. They may be notable if they chart. That's all. They never released two albums, only one. The second work was an EP. Also, nothing they have done has attracted press. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "automatically" means in this context, but charting on Billboard has been the closest thing we have to a gold standard for WP:MUSIC for as long as I have been editing. I don't see why we would want to not have an article on a group that meets WP:MUSIC; as noted, there are available sources, so we don't have a WP:V issue here, and there are plenty of acts that are notable who released only one full-length album. Chubbles (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has not. There has been a lot of debate about this, and editor like you continue to forget that WP:MUSICBIO has the term "may" in the criteria. It simply means that just because they have charted does not automatically mean that they are notable. There are plenty of acts who are notable for one work, but this is not one of them. if they are notable, provide reliable sources (more than one) that discuss the band at length. If not, stop stating that we should keep articles about bands that no one else cares to write about. If outside sources do not write about them neither should we. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't know what "automatically" means in this context. But it sounds like you are claiming that, in addition to meeting the SNG of WP:MUSIC, the article also needs to meet the GNG, and it most certainly does not; there would be no need for the SNG if that were true. As I noted, we do not completely lack for outside sources, and both WP:MUSIC and WP:V are met. I'm happy to see it included if and when more are found (and I am confident there are more beyond our lazy Google searches), but that coverage is not necessary based on what we already have. Chubbles (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This SNG in particular does not make the claim that if criteria is met that the subject are notable. You do read that, right? Bcause it sounds like you are claiming that any band or musician that meets one criteria is immediately notable and you are ignore the qualifier of may. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "immediately", same as "automatically". These are straw-man words. The question becomes, if the subject meets the guideline, why would we want to exclude it from inclusion - why would we choose to say it's not notable anyway? The answer I hear is "because it doesn't meet the GNG", or "because it doesn't meet bullet 1 of WP:MUSIC", which is the GNG. But again, if that were the criterion, then the SNG would not be needed, and if this is a special case meriting deletion in unusual circumstances, I don't think there's a compelling IAR rationale for deletion here (certainly, none has been provided). Chubbles (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they are not straw man words. You are wikilawyering Chubbles. MUSIBIO confers no notability on bands. It simply lists criteria by which a band or musician may be notable. In short, this band meets aone criterion, and yet they are clearly not in any way notable. Get the word may removed from the criteria and this conversation ends. While it remains in-place, you can state they meet an item on the list, but that does make them notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't know how anyone who edits regularly in music can come to the conclusion that "MUSIBIO confers no notability on bands". That is precisely its purpose. In any case, I doubt dragging this out any further will dislodge either of us from our perches. Chubbles (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly do not know how anyone who speaks English cannot understand that the word may means. You can keep trying to confuse the issue, but that word is still there. I doubt that dragging this out any further will get you to acknowledge your error. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There's not much to work with, but the "keep" voters above are more convincing on how there is enough for a short stub article on this band. They meet #2 and #4 at WP:NBAND due to the charting single and the ensuing media coverage that is already cited in the article. The argument above on "may" and "automatically" etc. achieves nothing and is a bad reason to keep this AfD going for weeks and weeks. Those accusing others of wikilawyering could stand to look in the mirror. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the people who !voted for keep will actually add content then, otherwise it remains a perma-stub, which is useless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service / Wikipedia:There is no deadline / Wikipedia:Permastub. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct, but we don't keep Wikipedia:Permastubs and editors like the two of you prefer that we do, so perhaps spend less time on commenting on hopeless articles and spend time working on it. Your choices speak volumes as to your commitment to Wikipedia. I have been involved in at least three other AfDs over the past year or two where the only keep comments have come from you and Chubbles and those articles are still in a sad state, and readers still have no clue why the articles exist, but we have had an AfD that said they charted, and so we must keep them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know less than jack, but why let that stop you? Disagreeing with other people's votes in AfDs gives you zero evidence for conclusions about their motivations. You have no idea how many Wikipedia articles I have improved over the years, nor do you know this about anyone else. The last several pages of my contribution history "speak volumes" about how much you don't know about my commitment to improving articles. That same contribution history also shows that I am more likely to vote to delete articles that come to the Bands/Musicians AfD page, including many that were nominated by you. Looking forward to your next gripe about how you're the only smart person around here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Doomsdayer520, please don't comment on what I do and do not know. Also, we do not vote. In short, glad you're such a committed editor, this band is not worth incusion on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please note: WG says above, "we don't keep Wikipedia:Permastubs". Per the linked essay: "Paper encyclopedias are full of informative, concise stubs. Finished permastubs likewise don't need expansion.". Chubbles (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Philadelphia[edit]

Cultural depictions of Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article puts its best foot forward, starting with statues, paintings, and literature. But they aren't really "cultural depictions of Philadelphia", but depictions of events that happened in Philadelphia, several of which have articles. Things go downhill rapidly once one reaches music, where "depiction of" becomes "contains the line", usually actually "contains the word 'Philly'". That's not a depiction. The films give no indication why they are there, whether it is because they were filmed on location there or are set there. Television at least tries, but again the "cultural depictions" turn out to be merely non-depicting things like 215 area code telephone numbers being used in a show. If the article were limited to things that depict Philadelphia per its stated scope, it would look somewhat different. This article is things that can be related to Philadelphia anyhow with even the most desperate of reaches, however. Uncle G (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uncle G: Are you voting Keep or Delete? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:NOTAVOTE Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For a reasonable demonstration of the topic's notability and viability, see the Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia which has equivalent entries on:

1. Art
2. Literature
3. Media
4. Movies
5. Music
6. Performing Arts
7. Popular Culture

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pop culture trivia, the majority of this list uses IMDB as a source, which isn't reliable. Categories for 'X set in Philadelphia' seems sufficient to cover this topic, and this article seems excessive, listing many trivial appearances of the city with no source. Waxworker (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Essentially a list of poorly sourced trivia, most of which is extremely trivial (like the multitude of song lines that said the name of the city). A decent prose article could possibly be written on the actual topic, but this mass of trivia does not need to be kept in the main space in the meantime. Particularly since, as mentioned by Waxworker, the categories of movies/TV shows/etc set in Philadelphia already exist for navigation. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment newspaper.com gives 40 Matches for "Cultural depictions" of "Philadelphia" and 68 Matches for "depictions of Philadelphia". Sorting through them now, I see Philadelphia Daily News (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) 28 Aug 2017, Mon Page 18 has a full article about how the television show Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia so well portrayed the city, and suggesting the creator of the show be given a statue. "Rob McElhenney is the man behind the most famous depiction of Philly in the 21st century". Would searching for things on this list and the phrase "depiction of Philadelphia" show any results? The Times Leader (Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania) 11 Jul 2010, Sun Page 59 Crime novel tells a dismal, gritty tale of Philly is the headline and the article talks about the "bleak depiction of the Philadelphia". So places that review things do mention their depiction of this city. Lot of search results to sort through. Dream Focus 20:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is just TV Tropes trivia in its current form. If there is any potential for a prose version of this article, it can be redone at a later date. TTN (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be contrary to explicit policy which clearly states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That would require the page to be in a suitable state from which it could be improved, and my statement is a conditional if requiring actual potential to first be demonstrated. Neither condition has been fulfilled, so this hypothetical prose article will require someone making a draft or expanding the topic in the parent article to a suitable point that splitting is necessary. TTN (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Don't see how it is different than other recently deleted pages. Shankargb (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although I have to say deleting such lists seems pretty random. Random list of mentions of journalists was recently kept, this random list of mentions of a city won't be? Eh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom's rationale. Does not meet wp:listn. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lots of primary and unreliable sources. It seems exorbitant with listing many insignificant appearances with no source, Myconcern (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rugby league#Other competitions. Going with merge and redirect as WP:Alternative to deletion. Missvain (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Kangaroo tour of England[edit]

2020 Kangaroo tour of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG, by virtue of it being cancelled. Yes there was coverage that the series would return, but in the end, it was cancelled. Any relevant info can be captured in the parent article The Ashes (rugby league)#History, no need for a separate article outlining fixtures that didn't happen. Redirect to The Ashes article would be fine in my opinion Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rugby league#Other competitions - a very clear place to put this and alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Ashes (rugby league)#History Deejayceeare (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rugby league#Other competitions is one option. It did not happen so I find it difficult to support other redirects. I would also go along with "delete". --Bduke (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Dinowitz[edit]

Eric Dinowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

City-level politicians aren't inherently notable, and I can't find any solid secondary sources (beyond a few mentions in local press of his candidacy and election results, plus the usual social media of course) to satisfy sigcov, hence fails WP:GNG / WP:POLITICIAN. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's rationale. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Eric Dinowitz is a sitting member of the New York City Council whose council members have long had Wikipedia articles without issue. I think throwing in an NYC Councilman as "local politician," is not a correct interpretation of the rules.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and flag for improvement. This is definitely in dire need of improvement — namely, it has to be referenced to media coverage, not just to Ballotpedia and his own self-published website about himself — but New York City is very much one of the internationally prominent global cities where we absolutely do accept the city council as a notable political office. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearcat where in WP:NPOL does it say that there is an exception for local politicians in NYC or other global cities? --hroest 14:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:POLOUTCOMES specifies that we keep city councillors in internationally prominent global cities. Category:New York City Council members has over 300 articles on past or present New York City councillors, and even just the membership list in New York City Council reveals that every single other incumbent NYC councillor has an article with the isolated exceptions of a couple who were also just newly elected in March (which means their articles just haven't been started yet, not that they're barred from ever having articles on notability grounds). Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Toronto, same story: every single incumbent city councillor has an article without exception (although obviously some historical councillors from 50 or 100 years ago have been overlooked). NPOL doesn't have to explicitly reconfirm what POLOUTCOMES already says, especially when what POLOUTCOMES already says is easily backed up by evidence. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see anything in WP:NPOL that says an exception to the rule is to be made for prominent cities, let alone just for NYC. The guideline says "Just being an elected local official [...] does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." City politicians are by definition local. I don't see GNG being satisfied. And to say that other NYC politicians may have articles is merely the WP:OSE argument. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL doesn't have to say it if WP:POLOUTCOMES does. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he got 5000 votes, so he is representing about as many people as a small town mayor. Also, no SIGCOV here, so I agree with DoubleGrazing. It clearly specifies Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. both of which he fails. --hroest 14:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL is not a question of how many individual votes the person did or didn't get in the process of being elected to a political office — it's a question of whether the body that the person was elected to is a notable one or not, and has nothing to do with how many votes it did or didn't take to get elected to it. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that is why it states Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, I hope you are not claiming that the NYC city council is a national or international office he got elected to? --hroest 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's NPOL #1, not NPOL #2. NPOL #2 pertains to municipal politicians not covered by NPOL #1, and NPOL #2 is expanded upon in more depth at WP:POLOUTCOMES due to its vagueness and tendency to be interpreted differently by different readers — and POLOUTCOMES explicitly says that while city councillors are not automatically deemed notable in all cities, city councillors are deemed notable in internationally prominent global cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto and London. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I see, thanks for bringing this up. I also see the point of having an article on each member of the council and not having some missing. I need to think about this some more. However, the outcome guidelines are just guidelines and also state precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London., where tended to favor is not the same as saying it makes them automatically notable. Also I think we would still need coverage from WP:RS and not his campaign webpage. --hroest 16:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not voting either way - I'm not sure GNG is satisfied, but it could be, and I'm not going to do the work to check on this one, at least not right now. I just don't completely agree with the "major city exception" to WP:NPOL - I'd like to make sure WP:GNG is met here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have gone ahead and cited more references, from both national and regional news sources, to satisfy WP:RS, as well as added a section about Dinowitz's presence within music to potentially satisfy WP:GNG. I do agree with Bearcat's statement on notability, as there are hundreds of articles on past and present New York City Councilors which have been fine, including predecessors within the 11th Council District, so I wouldn't see any exception to be made to this one. -BriLila (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason in and of itself. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to add that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, and not a policy and guideline. Though based on the guideline of WP:POLITICIAN, there is no reason to keep this article. SunDawn (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN as a city-level politician he is not inherently notable. New York City, while a very famous city, remains a "city" and should not have more inherent notability than other cities, except for some circumstances. SunDawn (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't believe that "local politician" is a correct interpretation of the guidelines of Wikipedia:POLITICIAN in these circumstances. New York City council members represent 150,000 people, while it could be in a "local" area, it is still a very large amount of people where I feel the office should not be excluded from being notable. Also, I feel that OSE is a valid argument in the case of inherent notability. There are New York City Council members, past and present, who have articles without any issue. I don't believe this page should be excluded from other New York City council members for this reason. -BriLila (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a member of the New York City Council the subject passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Member of the city council of the country's largest city. KidAd • SPEAK 20:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Nweil (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Bowyer[edit]

Hazel Bowyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pure vanity/promo piece on a non-notable local politician and businessperson, effectively just says they had a career. Sources are few and poor, esp. once you discount the Wiki ones, and a search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. (Regarding the latter point, for those not familiar with UK's local gov't structures, a District Council comes nowhere near the sub-national elected body mentioned in NPOL.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People do not get articles just for serving as chairpersons of local councils, the only other notability claim here is that she existed as a businessperson, and the article is not sourced even remotely close to well enough to make her encyclopedically notable for either of those things. I've already stripped the numerous references where the creator scanned a newspaper clipping and uploaded it to Commons — the problem being that scanning a newspaper clipping does not result in your own new "original" work that you're free to upload to a Wikimedia project under Creative Commons, because the newspaper still has a copyright on the content of those files, but (a) Commons cannot host non-free content, and (b) Wikipedia articles cannot be sourced to copyright-violating copies of content — but even if we set those problems aside and just assess them on their merits as sourcing, they still aren't GNG-building coverage anyway: one is just the caption to a photograph, one is her own self-created campaign ad, and one is just a very short article minimally verifying her election to the role, so they wouldn't have been enough even if they weren't unusable copyright violations.
  Politicians at the local level of office (city, town, county or district councils) are not entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically possible to verify that they existed as local officeholders — at that level of office, the notability test requires analysis of the significance of their work, not just proof that they existed. And after the removal of the copyright rips, there's nothing else left: five of the six remaining footnotes are primary sources (raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of organizations or companies she's been directly affiliated with, etc.) that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that's actually a real media outlet just glancingly namechecks her existence a single time in the process of being about her son.
  Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced a lot better than anything the creator has shown. Bearcat (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avalude Prathikaram[edit]

Avalude Prathikaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage fails WP:NFILM. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hridayathil Nee Mathram[edit]

Hridayathil Nee Mathram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage fails WP:NFILM. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karate Girls[edit]

Karate Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage fails WP:NFILM. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If this is all the coverage to be found for an '88 film, it fails NFF. If there are newspaper reviews in print to be found, ping me for an update. -2pou (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashokante Aswathikuttikku[edit]

Ashokante Aswathikuttikku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. This is essentially a WP:1S. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM no reliable coverage. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kallanum Polisum[edit]

Kallanum Polisum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. This is essentially a WP:1S. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM no reliable coverage. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any arguments that can be made rebutting those above. There isn't even much to WP:PRESEVE in case I am wrong, so starting over from scratch would not be bad. -2pou (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevitham Oru Raagam[edit]

Jeevitham Oru Raagam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. This is essentially a WP:1S. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability found, fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pavam I. A. Ivachan[edit]

Pavam I. A. Ivachan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. This is essentially a WP:1S. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manikya Chempazhukka[edit]

Manikya Chempazhukka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. This is essentially a WP:1S. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP user who removed the PROD is currently blocked. Kolma8 (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theere Pratheekshikkathe[edit]

Theere Pratheekshikkathe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed by an IP user without providing any justification. Kolma8 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-It[edit]

Pop-It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

App that no longer exists; only independent RS cited (or from a quick google) is a single review. Gaelan 💬✏️ 04:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gaelan 💬✏️ 04:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only decent reference found is one (1) Forbes review. Fails to pass WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There 's a link to Kirkus review, but not linking to any review. Also a link to Wired magazine, not working. Lacks notability. Cinadon36 18:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — The Earwig (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sol América[edit]

Sol América (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet notability. I don’t see a lot of reliable source + reference of course about this old Venezuela airline. Kaseng55 (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion Cannot see how an airline which was in operation for over 30 years and operated a wide variety of aircraft types can be regarded as non-notable. The article may need updating and improvement but not deletion.Ardfern (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nomination is not convincing. Geschichte (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could not find reliable sources that prove notability. Alan Islas (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's hard to find sources given there are several soccer teams with the same name, most notably the Paraguayan one, which flood results. However, there are still two results for the airline on the front page of (UK) Google search (that aren't Wikipedia), so it's clearly the secondary use (of the term, to the club) and has enough notability to stay. Still runs many internal Venezuelan flights. Kingsif (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If re-nominated for deletion, a deeper analysis of the sources in article (or otherwise available) by those who feel significant coverage exists, or doesn't exist, would be helpful to the closer. Right now all I have to work with is "no it doesn't/yes it does". Therefore, and with minimal participation in mind, I can find no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Starks[edit]

Steve Starks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd disagree that the subject fails to meet SIGCOV guidelines. I think the articles cited on the page itself and other sources from a quick Google News search show that the coverage exists and is, in my opinion, non-trivial. Perhaps the page could use some copyediting. Gargleafg (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Road, Hong Kong[edit]

Middle Road, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not every road in Hong Kong is notable and there is no indication that this one is either. It must pass WP:GEOROAD Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. With no sources provided, there is no evidence of notability. Furthermore, the road appears to be only a few blocks long; the streets mentioned in this article that Middle Road adjoins (has an intersection with) appear to be all the streets that it adjoins. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong#Kowloon and New Kowloon (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. It is useful to preserve the history under the redirect to allow for editors to undo the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found. It is also useful to preserve the history to allow for a merge of the content to either List of streets and roads in Hong Kong or to another article such as "List of street and roads in Kowloon and New Kowloon", which currently does not exist but could be created in the future as a spinoff from the main list article.

  Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for a redirect. What your proposing is a redirect to a list of streets that itself violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The reader will find no additional information at this list articles, making the redirect pointless.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reader will find that the street is located in Kowloon. The list does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list definitely violates WP:DIRECTORY. It says that it is a list of notable roads, but indiscriminately lists many others that are not.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Tsim Sha Tsui#Middle Road, where I added information about the road. The street is also discussed in East Tsim Sha Tsui station so that is an alternative merge/redirect target. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I have beefed up the article with references to coverage about this road in several reliable sources. Middle Road holds historic significance in several respects: it marks the original coastline of Tsim Sha Tsui, it is one of Kowloon's oldest streets, it is home to one of Kowloon's oldest public parks, and it once had Hong Kong's largest multi-storey car park. A pedestrian tunnel beneath Middle Road is one of the most important transportation arteries within Tsim Sha Tsui. I will continue to work on the article. Citobun (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the substantial improvements you have made to the article! Excellent work! Cunard (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cunard for all your hard work here as well! Citobun (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind words, thank you! Cunard (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the substantial work that Citobun (talk · contribs) has done on the article, which shows that the road has historical significance and meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Citobun and Cunard. Deryck C. 16:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An interesting and well referenced article, thanks to Citobun's work. Quite a bit more can certainly be added to this article about an important part of Kowloon. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Newfoundland Hockey League[edit]

Central Newfoundland Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unfortunately fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No sources, no coverage, no nothing; this seems like nothing more than a glorified beer league. (With no little irony, going back on the Wayback Machine on the dead league page to one of the few hits crawled shows just a list of scores ... and ads for three beer companies.) Ravenswing 02:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no RS, no evidence of notability. --hroest 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie Bodden[edit]

Ozzie Bodden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Surprised this survived an AfD already, because he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY in spite of playing in the CONCACAF Champions League in 2013 per Soccerway - I cannot find anything additional in Honduran media to help save the article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete playing in any continent's Champions' League doesn't mean you pass WP:NFOOTY (unless both sides are fully professional, which isn't the case here). Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Did you before in Spanish User:SportingFlyer? Years later, there's still stuff online like this. A Honduran newspaper archive from that period would be useful. Typically there's good coverage of the top Honduran teams in the Honduran media, even if not all teams in the league are fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nfitz: I specifically searched La Prensa and Diez, he's mentioned a bit, but didn't find anything I thought was significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 15:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree, fails GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails the guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mint 400 Records discography[edit]

Mint 400 Records discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Mint 400 Records discography: The problems with this article include notability, NPOV|neutraility, and verifiability. First, this is a discography for a record label. As such, it only passes notability if the record label passes musical notability or general notability. There is nothing in this article to that effect. The article does not speak for itself. The record label does not have a company article. Draft:Mint 400 Records has been submitted and declined and then rejected. Creation of this discography for a non-notable label is gaming the system.

Second, the article has had a long history of paid editing, being created by NorthPark1417, who is blocked for conflict of interest. The article has not yet been cleaned of promotional material. It also contains language intended to praise the subject rather than describe them neutrally.

Third, as to verifiability, the first seven references are unresolvable. References 8 through 10 are passing mentions, and reference 11 appears to be a passing mention, but is paywalled. However, the sources would only matter if they supported a claim of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the carefully reasoned nomination above. I was one of several editors to review the Draf tarticle for the company and decline it for many of the same reasons as outlined above. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- In addition to the great reasons given by the nominator, WP:NOTCATALOG also applies.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I forgot to include this analysis of the sources.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you are writing about user:NorthPark1417 is untrue, he clearly said in one of the past talk pages that got deleted who he was and he was not related to the source or the material. And user:Robert McClenon who is clearly not knowledgable on the subject just rejected it yesterday and has not read the wiki guidelines for record label notability of which this is by all standards a notable label. They have bands on the Billboard charts, bands on the NACC charts, bands with members who are in major label bands, past mentions of their artists in notable press outlets like Alternative Press, Brooklyn Vegan, Paste, etc. and they have close to 400 records available through Sony Distribution of which I added the correct link to Label.FM's up to date discography. Secondly The Aquarian and NJ.com (Part of the Star Ledger and Jersey Journal) are major New Jersey musical press outlets, in fact there aren't bigger outlets in NJ that cover music. (User talk:Yourepartofit)

I'm not super knowledgeable on what admins are allowed to do but how can you decide to not let them edit the company article anymore? It was live at some point along with the discography, and it was marked by the WikiProjects for Record Labels as at the "Start" and needed to be worked on. Is there some reason you are not allowing the main company article to not be worked on anymore? It would seem this is a catch 22 if you don't allow the main company article to be submitted anymore. 12:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)168.229.254.25

• Delete - The nominator has this right, I concur on every point. Note that discography is very important to me, but in this case, if the label is not notable, the discography of Mint 400 must be covered by in-depth by multiple independent, reliable sources. Othersiwe all you have is advertising for a company's product. Which seems to be an issue with Mint 400.... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ✗plicit 23:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Owch Darreh (disambiguation)[edit]

Owch Darreh (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ✗plicit 23:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tup Aqaj[edit]

Tup Aqaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ✗plicit 23:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shur Barik[edit]

Shur Barik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qowmabad[edit]

Qowmabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omm Arqal[edit]

Omm Arqal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lay Gerdu[edit]

Lay Gerdu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ✗plicit 23:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khvajeh Ali[edit]

Khvajeh Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ✗plicit 23:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kahn Bid[edit]

Kahn Bid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: CSD G14 CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ✗plicit 23:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarbah[edit]

Jarbah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdraw. It exists under a different name than what was on the article which I was not aware of. (non-admin closure) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coptosia gianassoi[edit]

Coptosia gianassoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Relies entirely on 1 source, has no categories, and a google search on brings up about 100 results, most of which appear to be based off of Wikipedia or are UGC Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• a)
  A SCIENTIST HAS LEFT
  A DESCRIPTION MOST QUOTABLE
  OH FORTUNATE BUG
  WE DEEM THY NAME NOTABLE
  Burma-shave

(always happy to be able to use this :)

b) present in multiple databases as a synonym of Phytoecia gianassoi [1][2] (+ BioLib), to which name it should be moved (and lack of cats has never had any impact on AfD). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original description: Sama, G. (2007). "Description of a new Coptosia fairmaire, 1864 from Iran (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae, Phytoeciini)". Atti della Società italiana di scienze naturali e del museo civico di storia naturale di Milano. 148 (1): 97–100.

Reclassification: Danilevsky, M. L. (2017). "A new subgenus of the longicorn genus Phytoecia Dejean, 1835 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) from the Palaearctic region". Entomological Review. 97 (8): 1137–1139.

So what I'm saying is - withdraw? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. I was not aware of the synonym as I only did a google search on the article name, not aware there was another name. I will actually move the article to the appropriate name after withdrawing. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fazileh[edit]

Fazileh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one extant page 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: per CSD G14 CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chah Musa[edit]

Chah Musa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: per CSD G14 of course CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bolbolak (disambiguation)[edit]

Bolbolak (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the dab page is now redundant to the hatnote. – Uanfala (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Haven't moved as suggested below only due to not being aware of naming conventions etc around this, any other editor is free to do so (ping @Alexis Jazz:). Daniel (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjilan[edit]

Anjilan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one title 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy per WP:CSD G6, move Anjilan, Gilan to Anjilan. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G5 speedy delete Creating user is pretty clearly a sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Takshshila Institute Of Engineering And Technology[edit]

Takshshila Institute Of Engineering And Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD rationale by User:Mikehawk10 was This page is written like an advertisement, there appears to be very little news coverage of the page, and it might be better to blow up the page and restart. I also can't find real in-depth coverage of the source when considering broader sources easily accessible to me, so I am putting this up, as the article topic may very well fail WP:GNG..

I can't find any coverage that shows a passing of WP:NORG myself so I'm taking this to AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience (physics)[edit]

Pseudoscience (physics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was restored per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_29#Pseudoscience_(physics) and I bring it to AfD for a full discussion. The article was originally at Pseudophysics but boldly moved to the current title, then a requested move discussion had weak consensus against moving it back and the closer felt a separate discussion was in order. The article was then boldly blanked and redirected to pseudoscience, then nominated for AfD, then sent to RfD because it was already a redirect. It is now properly back at AfD to consider keeping the original article, deletion, or redirecting. There was some concern about the pseudoscience article being a good redirect target; one possibility mentioned at the RfD was List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. There is nothing in this article which goes beyond what is covered in the Pseudoscience article. There is no need to create a different article for each field of science. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the one who brought up List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics at RfD. I think this is unsuitable for redirection to Pseudoscience right now since there's no explicit coverage of pseudoscience in physics specifically, and only a few scattered mentions of physics at all. However, with only three topics given at the list section, there perhaps isn't a great deal of utility to readers to my suggestion either. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other items on that page which would qualify as physics, even though they're not in the "physics" subsection (the subsection above that includes some perpetual-motion claims, for example). XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original nominator, then maybe redirect to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics. This was initially about a made-up neologism "Pseudophysics", then unilaterally redirected following a failed RM when an AfD was requested. No wonder RfD resolved to send to AfD after the last nonimation was procedurally closed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chahe[edit]

Chahe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: has four appropriate entries (the three ones without an article of their own meet WP:DABMENTION). – Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uanfala. Three out of four disambiguation targets are redlinks at present. This title will need to be a disambiguation page as soon as one of the three turns blue; let's just maintain it as is. <3 Folly Mox (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uanfala. Useful disambiguation. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Fails WP:ORG; the refs stating that it has been referred to by other news websites are fake - those are just index pages for Hanswar-related news. That is, no credible indication of importance. utcursch | talk 15:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hanswar News[edit]

Hanswar News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable "news" outlet, which is a generious term for "blog", no coverage, fails WP:NWEB/NCORP YODADICAE👽 16:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. (1) This is not a newspaper despite what the article would have you believe, it's a Weebly.com page and (2) It claims three newspapers have mentioned their work, which I doubt that's true if the pages the three refs direct me to are any indication. Ref 2 only links me to that source's main page, while refs 1 and 3 direct me to pages of websites for newspapers that list articles tagged only "Hanswar", which may be about the place but not the specific Hanswar News source. These could just be unintentional mistakes, however; I've seen the creator of this article work on articles of other Indian topics in an encyclopedic way, so I doubt the article is intentional WP:PROMOTION. However, what is true is that this topic is nowhere near notable. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (Speedy) Delete I don't know if this comes under A7, given that it may not be just a blog, there could well be an actual paper version also (it does say 'broadsheet' in the infobox, which a mere blog probably wouldn't claim, unless purely to deceive). But either way, it should be deleted as non-notable village rag. The alleged sources seem to be news (?) about the locality where this illustrious publication is based, not about the publication itself, and are thus irrelevant. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Santa Paula, California. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limoneira, California[edit]

Limoneira, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prompted by comments at the discussion of Kevet, I've skipped ahead to this location, which technically was a rail spot (there was a long spur leading here) but which acquires its name from the Limoneira Ranch, the home base of a huge citrus/avocado growing operation. Their website lists all their properties, totalling some 14,500 acres, and of this property they say,

"The Limoneira/Olivelands Ranch is the original site of the company and consists of approximately 1,744 contiguous acres located just west of Santa Paula, California. There are approximately 1,189 acres of agricultural plantings on this property which consist of approximately 544 acres of lemons, 643 acres of avocados and 2 acres of specialty citrus and other crops."

So I think it is very safe to say this was never a settlement. Limoneira, the company, already has its own article, and there's nothing here salvageable, so I think we can do without this article. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Santa Paula, California. Limoneira built housing on their land in the late 1990s according to this article, but it seems like it was never considered separate from Santa Paula (and I'm not sure that any of the housing developments were called Limoneira either). In either case, this is another article where I trusted a highway map when I shouldn't have. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can highly recommend the history books that I mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevet, California. They're available for many places around the U.S., usually authored by local historians rather than just any old people who happen to rock up, and whilst not the be-all-and-end-all in themselves, they are good guides to what subjects one will find other historic and geographic sources to support. Also note the Teague-McKevett Ranch mentioned there, not actually a part of Santa Paula until recently and also known as East Area 1, which is not only documented in that planning application, but in many things like the 1968 California Historical Society Quarterly, and owned by Charles Collins Teague's and his wife's McKevett Corporation from 1905 until it merged with Limoneira in 1994. There is an East Area 2 as well. Until the recent annexations over the last decade, a lot of this was outwith the borders of Santa Paula. Olivelands Ranch, which originally grew walnuts and not lemons, was in fact owned by C.C. Teague as well, and not actually Limoneira originally, despite the misleading corporate history quoted above. Teague was president of both companies from 1917 onwards. The second Arcadia Press book has a little family picture with C.C. and Harriet McKevett Teague, and that's a fair hint that Charles Collins Teague is notable.

    History is so much better than interpreting dots and fonts on maps.

    Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Belknap, Michael R. (June 1968). "The Era of the Lemon: A History of Santa Paula, California". California Historical Society Quarterly. 47 (2). University of California Press: 113–140. doi:10.2307/25154283. JSTOR 25154283.
    • Sackman, Douglas Cazaux (2007). "By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them". Orange Empire: California and the Fruits of Eden. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520251670.
• I agree. Trying to write about any of this as a railway station is a mistake, and there's really nothing of substance to say about the railway. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was speedy deleted. Missvain (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In The End: There's Always A Disney God (TV Series)[edit]

In The End: There's Always A Disney God (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

completely non-notable show, no coverage or meaningful reviews, isn't on a major network and doesn't otherwise satisfy WP:GNG and borders on a hoax considering the lead calls it a television show but it appears to be nothing more than a podcast. YODADICAE👽 15:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Appears to be blatant vandalism/ a hoax. Even if this "show" exists, it is certainly not notable, but the fact that most of the article is just copied/pasted from the article on Superman & Lois with the title changed makes me think this is pure vandalism. Either way, this should be speedied. Rorshacma (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To add on to my previous comment on most of the page being copied/pasted from the Superman & Lois article, it looks like the entire cast list is copied/pasted from Raven's Home, with just the first couple of entries changed, as well. So, again, regardless of if this actually exists or not, this article should be deleted ASAP. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. According to the Internet Movie Database, this IS a TV miniseries. Rollo August (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is user generated and I'm not inclined to think something with this description: In this episode we will discuss one of an oldest gay will not a old game not a really old game anyway but a PlayStation 4 game called Beyond two Souls is anything but a hoax. YODADICAE👽 15:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete – Good catch by Rorshacma; the production details are especially revealin, being almost identical. The Draft:Kenneth Mank article by the same editor (supposedly the producer of this series) is a copy of Jesse Williams (actor). The IMDb page(s) had me going, too, but the texts there are as poorly written as the text in this article (and I removed the synopsis here which was a verbatim copy of IMDb's). Also, the IMDb series page has status "Approved", which I think means only that the submission has been accepted, though not verified. IAC, that's an odd status for something that's allegedly an IMDb production, running for the last month. Kill it, and possibly also the Draft:In The End: There's Always A Disney God (TV-Mini Series) version which was created two weeks after this mainspace version. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. This is so overwhelming with WP:SALT I think I might get sick. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Superfluous – There's no need for an additional comment (and certainly not three edits) when the article was deleted almost 6 hours previously, which explains the red coloring of the link. @Praxidicae: do you want to close or withdraw or retract this AfD now? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had to change my comment cause I didn't know WP:SNOW was only for keeps, that's all hehehee. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jashodaben Modi[edit]

Jashodaben Modi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Blatant violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. All sources talk significantly about Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister. I don't see any sources that discuss her without significantly talking about Narendra Modi. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator's statement is blatantly false, for one NOTINHERITED is not a guideline that can be "violated", and significant ongoing coverage of her in many international sources includes [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. I have voted delete on many people whose sole claim to fame was a relation, but she has received much legitimate coverage about her relationship clearly passing GNG. Reywas92^Talk 18:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 10 facts to know about Jashodaben, wife of Prime Minister Narendra Modi - No need to describe how the coverage isn't centered on her but happened because of relationship with Narendra Modi.
• Abandoned as a child bride, wife of Narendra Modi hopes he calls - Same as above.
• No passport for PM's spouse, as she has no marriage certificate - Same as above.
• This article mentions Narendra Modi more than 10 times, thus same as above.
• Narendra Modi’s Estranged Wife Escapes Unhurt From Car Crash in India - No brainer that she got coverage here only because she is wife of Narendra Modi.
• “I am Narendra Modi’s Wife” - The case is way too obvious for me to explain.

All of these sources do not confirm that the subject is notable at all outside the relationship with Narendra Modi. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly misunderstand NotInherited. It does not mean that sources are forbidden from mentioning the related person to count. Most sources about every first lady for every country will be premised on the relationship and would not get coverage at all were they not married to a leader. Reywas92^Talk 18:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jashodaben Modi is not a "first lady" of India. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the folks at Spouse of the prime minister of India then. Reywas92^Talk 17:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The sources listed by Reywas92 are very convincing and more than enough for WP:GNG-based notability. They are all primarily about the subject, in-depth, appear reliable, and span a wide range of years. Nomination is based on a blatant misunderstanding of NOTINHERITED: it does not prevent someone related to more-famous topics from having articles, if they themselves are also notable. For instance, most sources about Narendra Modi are going to mention the country of India, a more notable topic than Narendra Modi; nevertheless, Narendra Modi is also notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a clear cut misrepresentation of NOTINHERITED. The coverage of this subject is clearly depending on the popularity of Narendra Modi. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? NOTINHERITED clearly states "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship ... if they pass WP:GNG". The coverage of Narendra Modi is clearly depending on the significance of the country of India; does that make Narendra Modi non-notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep As per sources listed by Reywas92 and David Eppstein. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• David Eppstein never listed a single source. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's intended to cast my opinion into disrepute, it fails badly. I looked carefully at all six of the sources listed by Reywas92, analyzed them myself rather than relying on Reywas92's opinion of them, and concurred that they more than met the requirements of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Blatant case of WP:NOTINHERITED as per my assessment of sources above. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTINHERITED is not actually a valid deletion rationale. It states only that if someone does not pass GNG, then inherited notability will not save them. But that would be equally true ignoring the question of inheritance. So without an evaluation of whether she passes GNG (that is, whether there are multiple in-depth reliable sources about her, regardless of who else those sources might also mention), your opinion is valueless. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. clearly has enough SIGCOV (see Reywas92) and pass GNG. --hroest 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above + UCS. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject has substantial coverage from reliable and independent sources (Ashique2020 (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep Adequate evidence has been provided above that the subject meets GNG. As David Eppstein explained, close relations of famous people can have an independent article when GNG is satisfied. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• They can't, otherwise there will be an article about every single relative of Narendra Modi and Donald Trump but that hasn't happened. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It happened actually. Several members of the Trump's family do have their own articles because they meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Srijanx22 it would have been appropriate to do a courtesy ping of all those who !voted in the first two AFDs considering that the consensus was delete in both of them and the sources considered were almost the same. VV 09:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Pinging @RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, LibStar, Redtigerxyz, Johnpacklambert, Sitush, Bejnar, and EricSerge:. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the last AfD was in 2014 and that most of the sources from Reywas92 (considered also in my comment) have a later date than that. Therefore, I believe your claim that "the sources considered were almost the same" is false. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein to clarify, while the sources by Reywas92 are newer, the issues have persisted from time much before which is why I !voted keep due to WP:SUSTAINED. Certain aspects are unique to post-ascendance to the PM post. Best! VV 06:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the coverage of the subject has been WP:SUSTAINED and satisfies WP:GNG even if in relationship to Modi. VV 09:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep WTH? She is a public figure and controversial figure of our nation. This article has significant coverage and reliable source for her controversial case to justify keeping. WP:GNG is met. VocalIndia (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to read WP:ILIKEIT. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol it is you! So pity🥺. You also need to read WP:IDONTLIKE. VocalIndia (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep My knee jerk reaction was not notable but, looking at the article, I do see that she has been busy since the last time I !voted on this. While still marginal, we should probably keep this article. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have checked too and I don't see the subject rising above being wife of Narendra Modi. Shankargb (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What specific wording of what notability requirement do you see that requires anyone to "rise above" anyone else to be notable? Where is that even a thing? How does this relate to the actual criteria of WP:GNG? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I read earlier AfDs and I see that nothing seems to have changed when it comes to failure of notability. Most of the names listed on Spouse of the prime minister of India don't have an article. I see no special reason for this subject. Shankargb (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Most humans do not have articles. I see no special reason why we should have articles for humans. I have given the matter all due consideration. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 7 years of Modi Raj have made her a mini-celebrity. Media covers her temple visits [9][10][11], her car accident [12], her visit to an iftar party [13], even when she votes [14]. Things have changed from 2014 (see the last Afd, which I had initiated).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Absurd to claim that this doesn't meet WP:BASIC. Furius (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I voted in this article's 2nd AFD. In 2014, there was not the significant coverage to merit retaining it. However, several years later, the situation has changed and there is a ton of sustained coverage. Like Modi or not, his wife is notable on her own now. EricSerge (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nitesh003 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NewsFlash[edit]

NewsFlash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

relatively new website/app, doesn't appear to be notable despite the 8 million hits for the name, which is a common term. YODADICAE👽 14:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I'm sure the creator made this article with good encyclopedic intentions, but the only refs and sources are posts from the blog of the app's creator and three other blogs that only summarize the app and we don't know their reliability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Britney's Dance Beat[edit]

Britney's Dance Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The "reviews" are in most instances, one-liners, while others are incredibly short blurbs. There is only a single in-depth review. For over a decade was part of Britney Spears products, until it was split without attribution. Does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The game passes WP:GNG as there is a lot of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Some of them are already cited: GameSpot, IGN, PC Gamer, The Cincinnati Enquirer, Entertainment Weekly (dead link, [15]), GameSpy, GameZone, AllGame. But I found even more than that: Gamekult [16], 4Players [17] (has 2 pages + 3rd pros and cons one), The Electric Playground [18], Jeuxvideo.com [19], Meristation [20], The Washington Post [21]. I am pretty sure there is probably even more, especially in the United States' newspapers. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are many in-depth reviews already on the article, definitely not just 'short blurbs' and I believe it by far passes notability guidelines. Some of the reviews are brief, but the majority of them are in-depth reviews. See Eurogamer, GameSpot, GameSpy, and IGN for instance. Waxworker (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The references clearly satisfy WP:GNG, as demonstrated from the article and as others have pointed out. DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes notability guidelines. Majority contains in-depth reviews, Myconcern (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to California International Marathon. Missvain (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 California International Marathon[edit]

2017 California International Marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable enough as a stand-alone event: no sources are independent, and a source search only brought up the Sacramento newspaper (local) and a mere mention in Connecticut because a Connecticut runner won the men's race. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to California International Marathon. Each year's race doesn't have enough coverage to warrant its own article and should point to the main article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to California International Marathon as above. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to California International Marathon, there is nothing really notable at the 2017 race, thus no need for a specific standalone page for them. SunDawn (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This is an obvious redirect. 2017 should not have its own article. ABT021 (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing early due to ongoing consensus. I'll be surprised if any new evidence appears to support keep. Missvain (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Patrick Bateman-Champain[edit]

Arthur Patrick Bateman-Champain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't access the Crickinfo link, but since the article doesn't mention his cricketing career, I'm assuming it doesn't satisfy WP:NCRICKET. He certainly isn't notable as a soldier. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]