< April 10	April 12 >

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have You Ever Seen Fireflies?[edit]

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

Non-notable film, Film does not have significant coverage by independent sources, does not meet WP:NF, film has been reviewed by Decider which seems to review every full-length movie released on Netflix, and does not have any reviews by any other major professional source BOVINEBOY2008 23:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the Turkish Wikipedia has quite a lengthy article with sourcing that could be translated. The article is more about the play upon which the film is based, but I think that it would be reasonable to shift this to be the same for the English article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the extensive coverage on Turkish media: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 15:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per ReaderofthePack and Styyx. A very famous play in Turkey, the notability of which is also demonstrated by the lengthy article on the Turkish Wikipedia. And it has been adapted as a movie for Netflix, the coverage for which also exists as Styyx just showed. Keivan.f^Talk 02:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expanded the article a little bit using the info available on the Turkish article. Keivan.f^Talk 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick keep Definitely notable as stated before. Ahmetlii (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per above, has enough coverage to be notable. Alex-h (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TBF, I would have probably nommed this myself, had I first seen it when the nommer did. But it has since done something of a WP:HEY, with solid RS referencing (Hürriyet, Milliyet, etc.) added. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana[edit]

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

This is a planned television show. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The show doesn't even appear to have a definite planned date. The references do not provide significant coverage. More importantly, the article does not provide significant coverage, perhaps because there isn't significant coverage to be had be in order of this planned television show. This article is a puff piece. Moving it to draft space would, except that there is also already a draft. The originators have put the article in both draft space and article space, possibly to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As mentioned in the nomination, since the same article is already in draft.defcon5 (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, as same article is already in the draft there is no need to draftify. SunDawn (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please do not go ahead with the deletion of this page. For all StarPlus shows, the release date is revealed closer to the launch. It’s the same case here, all sources are perfectly mentioned and the release too will be revealed closer to the premiere. Please do not delete this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZMGA (talk • contribs) 09:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Sonofstar (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. --Incagnito (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Gables International School[edit]

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

Article written entirely based on non-independent sources. Also for being a for-profit organization it fails NSCHOOL, in which case the rule says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria". The WP:BEFORE gave some passing mentions but nothing makes it pass WP:NCORP nor WP:SIGCOV. Chirota (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find is three passing mentions in news articles about things barely related to the school. There's nothing in-depth though. Let alone the multiple in-depth, reliable sources that would be needed for either WP:GNG or more importantly WP:NORG. I'd be more then happy change my vote to keep if someone can provide WP:THREE references that can be used to establish notability though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV defcon5 (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non notable school. Alex-h (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York Academy[edit]

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

Article written entirely based on unreliable non-independent sources. Also for being a for-profit organization it fails NSCHOOL, in which case the rule says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria". The WP:BEFORE gave no independent RS that makes it pass WP:NCORP nor WP:SIGCOV. Chirota (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet minimum inclusion criteria of GNG. We really should stop treating non-profit schools more leniently for inclusion than for profit ones. We should start making both actually meet GNG and be covered in depth in multiple reliable, indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lacking the multiple, independent, in-depth reliable sources this would need for it to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Since I couldn't find anything about it in a BEFORE. Likely the rather general name doesn't help, but that's not on Wikipedia and there probably aren't any usable sources anyway consider its a K-12 school. As they rarely (if ever) have good enough sourcing to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as mentioned by others, clearly fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough coverage, fails WP:GNG .. Alex-h (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:DRAFTIFY. The article is now located at Draft:I Want You Back (film). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Want You Back (film)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFF, there is not significant coverage of the film, there was a burst of articles all based on the same press release that were published at (almost) the same time, but the film has had no other coverage, and the published info was all mundane production details (cast and crew involved), this should not constitute as significant coverage BOVINEBOY2008 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, I differ with your deletion proposal since it will be distributed worldwide by Amazon Studios, in addition to having several well-known actors in its cast. The fact that there are not so many articles related to the film yet does not mean that it is not remarkable. In any case, I would be more in agreement with it being moved to a draft. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Has potential to be notable once it is released. Donaldd23 (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This needs just a little bit more to really help give notability. The coverage is limited to pretty much a single press release - if you compare the text in the Deadline and THR sources you'll see that the text is pretty much identical for the most part. If there was a news article (as opposed to an industry listing) confirming that production had started and said something at least somewhat unique about the filming, then this might be a bit different. There's just not really enough here. This will very likely become notable once it releases, but we can't guarantee that at this point in time. It's still possible that this will release and gain no coverage that would establish notability or that something will happen to grind production to a halt. It's less likely that this will happen with mainstream fare with (I presume) a fairly large budget than say, an indie or niche genre production but it does happen. I'd just like there to be a wee bit more coverage than a small flurry of coverage based on a single press release, as otherwise this would just be prone to re-nomination for AfD in a month or a couple of weeks if/when more coverage doesn't come about. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usha Rama College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article written entirely based on primary source and has several tags now. Being a higher education institute without having ability to award Degree, fails WP:NSCHOOL. Also for being a for-profit organization it fails NSCHOOL, in which case the rule says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria". The WP:BEFORE gave nothing that makes it pass WP:NCORP nor WP:SIGCOV. Chirota (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference in the article that isn't dead is primary and all I could find about the college when I looked was a bunch of brief, trivial name drops in books and articles about other things. So this college clearly fails the general notability guidelines and the ones for organizations. Plus, it's written like an advert and there's no way to make it not sound like one without in-depth, usable references. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as mentioned in nomination, no significant coverage defcon5 (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enough rationale per norm. TheChronium (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Jørgensen (photographer)[edit]

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

Most of the article is about his now-ended marriage to Alexandra, ex-wife of Prince Joachim of Denmark. He is described as a cinematographer and entrepreneur, but I see no references to show that he has had a notable career. As notability is not inherited or granted by marriage per our guidelines, the notability of this individual is questionable based on the article's current status. Keivan.f^Talk 22:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability out with of his marriage. Suonii180 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage all focused on his marriage to and divorce from the ex-wife of a member of a royal family. This is not enough to have an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pranab Basu[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician (local councillor), fails WP:POLITICIAN. Didn't received significant press coverage. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject has not held any political office that confers automatic inclusion rights per WP:NPOL, and the article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Being only a councilor in a local government area does not confer notability, perhaps if it could be supported with WP:SIGCOV but for now it has no actual significant coverage. TheChronium (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community Harvest Charter School[edit]

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

This article concerns a defunct charter school in Los Angeles, California that allegedly existed from 2002 to 2012. The article currently cites no live sources and BEFORE searches do not return any sources that could be used to support or verify the contents of the article. Thus, I do not believe this article passes WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines and, lacking reliable sources, the content of the article is unverifiable. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough evidence to show that it passes WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles#Education - no substantial coverage in reliable sources sufficient to pass the GNG. Redirects are cheap, and this one would at least tell the reader where the school was and what happened to it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This school clearly doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Which isn't really suppressing. Since schools of this type hardly ever do. So, I'm strongly on the side of deleting the article. I'm not sure a redirect would be needed because there isn't enough references to support whatever will be added to the other article about it if it is redirect and I'm not personally into merging or redirect when un-referenced material will be involved. It's better just to get rid of it and call it a day. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is no where near what we expect to show that an institution is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sorry, I do not see any consensus in this discussion, and I do not see any reason to discard arguments of one of the sides--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference)[edit]

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

Article created by an indef banned user as an attack piece about an event that fails notability policy. The conference itself is not notable; what generated coverage were protests against it and coverage of those protests. But the coverage lasted just a few days and, as such, fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) which requires lasting significant consequences or affects a major geographical scope or receives substantial non-routine coverage that persists over some time. GizzyCatBella🍁 08:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GizzyCatBella🍁 08:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GizzyCatBella🍁 08:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, lean slight keep, its well sourced, and the coverage seems to last about 3 or 4 weeks (not days). But at the same time it does not seem to have been a lasting controvery.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I admit that there is too much trivia in this article for my liking (the full list of presenters/titles is excessive) and I agree that it is the protest which gives the subject notability. However, I do not think this is an example of one-off event with no long-term significance of the kind that WP:EVENT is intended to catch, eg. motorway pile-ups or individual murders. It forms part of a wider confrontation between Polish historical memory and Holocaust studies which is certainly notable and is only partially addressed at Historical policy of the Law and Justice party. As for the coverage, Slatersteven is right that it was relatively sustained and seems to have been reported internationally. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. News coverage of few weeks is not very sustained, IMHO, so I concur that this event fails NEVENT (and GNG). If kept this needs to be rewritten/retitled to Protests about... or such, as it was the protest, not the conference, which have any (if slight) claim of notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable conference of which there are many, without any long term influence or importance, used to write an attack page by now indef banned user notorious for falsfying and distorting sources.There was some news about it, but it lasted only couple of days. Wikipedia is not a depository of news articles. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GizzyCatBella, You shouldn't !vote you first statement is already a delete !vote per Wikipedia:DISCUSSAFD Shrike (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs drastic rewrites. But from my look at the sources, there are enough high quality sources to easily establish notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems that significance of the subject in question stems not only from the conference proceedings, but also from its social and political impacts, as demonstrated by reactions of various organizations and institutions, going all the way to ministerial and ambassadorial levels. All those events are notable enough to justify the existence of this article, but its content could be emproved. Sorabino (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above in other comments, non-notable conference and the approach of the now indef. banned user is also questionable. --E-960 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails at least tWO parts of WP:EVENT; WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:SENSATIONAL.This was actually pretty obvious when this article was first created. Volunteer Marek 11:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on description, that was not a groundbreaking academic event. It might be notable only as a subject of political controversy when "right-wingers" made a scandal. But I think that the incident can be best included to page Holocaust in Poland or to a more narrowly defined (but a better framed) page about the Holocaust controversies in modern Poland. Actually, this appears in the titles of the publications on this page, such as "The War Between Polish Nationalism and Holocaust History". Yes, something like that could be a proper subject for a WP page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: absolutely not notable. Mushroomson (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)— Mushroomson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

* Keep: Numerous high quality sources demonstrate notability. If there are concerns that the notability is for the protests and not the conference itself, that can be dealt with by renaming the article to reflect the focus on the protests. Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC) (blocked today by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100) - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Congratulations on your first AfD vote, just a month after you created your account. It's wonderful you feel you understand concepts such as notability so quickly after joining our project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG with multiple high-quality sources covering this in detail, from all over the world. Izabela Wagner wrote on this at length over here. The Polish national press wrote on this: [10][11]. So did Times Higher Education: [12]. Many other sources in other languages. I agree that this notable because of the attack on the conference, which resulted in the French government condemning the Polish government for the cross-border attack. --ScorchingElijah (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC) — ScorchingElijah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits. [reply]
Delete -- This appears to be an article about a single academic conference held on a notable topic. If the conference ended off with someone publishing its proceedings, with might possibly redirect to the proceedings. If some one can find a suitable merge target I migbht support a merge/redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing editor. Please note that the creator of this article has been indefinitely blocked, is known to operate sock accounts, and has used them to vote in AfDs about their attack pages before. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was neutral so I didn't voted but after examining sources one more is does meet WP:EVENT per WP:DIVERSE --Shrike (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...ummm WP:DIVERSE says that “Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.” ... but this is exactly a situation where a bunch of sources just mirror each other, even putting aside the fact that nothing of significance has been published on this since when it happened. So you’re quoting WP:DIVERSE precisely when it would suggest that this doesn’t meet notability criteria. How does that work? Volunteer Marek 03:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a thorough, well-researched and properly article about a notable conference, with ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. I would have suggested a merge, but with several insitutions collaborating together to form the conference there is no good location to merge to. There is plenty of RS, and there is no good policy based argument for deletion. WP:EVENT clearly states that events are notable if they meet GNG, so I don't think a claim for failing that guideline is valid. 4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of the conference passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Philepitta (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep largely per ScorchingElijah and Shrike, primarily based on the fact that this event is particularly novel and important from the Polish perspective, and so duly covered in the Polish media. Therefore it passes GNG. WP:DIVERSE strongly applies. Sone of the arguments to delete are particularly weak such as the article being created by a banned user (apart from being invalid I also find this argument repugnant). — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC) User:Alalch Emis contribs is a brand new account which has just been blocked – reply to smear: My account is not brand new but four months old, and I've since become an EC user. I have not "just" been blocked but partially-blocked cca 2 months ago from a single article and and it's daughter articles on a discretionary sanction basis. Therefore the poster of the previous sentence is not telling it how it is. Am I missing something or should I ask why the need for such tendentiousness in place of valid arguments in this discussion? — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr there was once a (now) banned user who liked to break rules, but also was a bit too good at pointing out POV-forcing edits by a number of other editors, including Marek, so now said editors see sockpuppets everywhere; get used to it I guess. Trasz (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but how does an account created on 1/7/2021 know about “GNG” and “WP:DIVERSE”? Am I missing something or are you just being so obvious that you want to get caught? Volunteer Marek 03:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a very important topic from the Polish point of view, and also heavily squashed by the current ruling party.Trasz (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Trasz, Which source says "this is an important topic?" Has any scholar said this in independent analysis? Ditto for "squashing". I'd very much like to see a source about how this is "censored" in Poland - that would certainly help to establish notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance moniker was "Lex Gross" for a reason. Trasz (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Trasz, Yes, it was amusing. Now, still waiting for sources that show this actually had an impact, and more importantly, that anything you mention was related to this conference. We are still dealing with the "small" fact that all coverage of the conference was limited to few days or so. If you have a scholarly source that discusses it in the context of Lex Gross or such, it would go a long way to establish enduring notability rather than NOTNEWS of this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More substantive analysis of the sources would be helpful in determining consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was anyone at the conference? I was there, at the site that was attacked by hooligans sent by the Polish government. Besides the news in the national Polish, French, and international press there are plenty of academic sources from 2020. The journal article at https://www.cairn.info/revue-raisons-educatives-2020-1-page-75.htm gives the attack as a demonstration why Poland is so problematic. There are full reviews of the proceedings that also contain details on the attack:

https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=928411 Review by Alina Molisak in journal

https://www.cairn.info/revue-revue-d-etudes-comparatives-est-ouest-2020-1-page-192.htm Review by Thomas chopard in journal

https://www.histoire-politique.fr/index.php?numero=23&rub=comptes-rendus&item=760 Review by Kornelia Kończal in journal

https://journals.openedition.org/lectures/44002 - Review by Florence Vychytil-Baudoux of attack and conference

All these reviews were published in 2020, because the proceedings (published in a book) came out at the end of 2019.

--User:ShoahResearcher - ----<--- — User:ShoahResearcher (talk • Special:Contributions/ShoahResearcher) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ignoring for the moment the WP:SPA nature of this account, the above sources are simply either proceedings of the conference or reviews of the conference. All conferences publish their proceedings!!! If you go to "Conference on Very Obscure Topic attended by Just a Few People That No One Ever Heard Off" then that conference will ALSO have proceedings. And you can find these in a some scholarly journal. I'm sorry but the fact that proceedings of the conference are published in a journal is simply not a way that WP:GNG can be satisficed. If we took that seriously than ANY conference would automatically be notable. Which is obviously not the case. Volunteer Marek 19:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article in The Polish Review "Reflections on German and Polish Historical Policies of Holocaust Memory" has an entire section on the Paris conference (section 4, "Historians in the Public Sphere—A Case of the Paris Conference", but gives it a slightly different title "The New Polish School of History of the Holocaust” -- it's definitely the same conference though, same location, dates, and events (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/polishreview.65.4.0036). An article in a scholarly journal devoting an entire section to this conference indicates lasting impact of the event. The conference is also mentioned in an article in the Israel Journal of Public Affairs ("Rediscovering the Dream: A Proposal for a “Pivot” in Polish–Israeli Relations (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23739770.2019.1638137). This one calls the conference "“The New Polish School of Holocaust History.”) The fact that this conference is discussed as a case study in multiple sources indicates notability per WP:PERSISTENCE. (Also, while I think there is already sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability, the fact that the conference title is translated in multiple ways suggests that there may be even more sourcing to be found -- neither of these publications are currently referenced in the article). Philepitta (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Philepitta, Thank you for finding academic sources. I finally found the time to try to review them, sadly, I cannot verify the first article, as my uni doesn't have access to it, and it's not on LibGen. Did you get access to it through a repository I could access, or can you otherwise email me a copy of this article? Regarding the second source, I was able to access it, but all I see is a mention in a footnote. A footnote mention is a rather weak indicator of enduring notability, although it is better than nothing. Hopefully, the coverage in the first article you mention is more substantial, which is why I'd like to take a look at it, if possible. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got access to "Reflections on German and Polish Historical Policies of Holocaust Memory" it through JSTOR. As I mentioned above, the conference is discussed as a case study in an entire section of the article, "Historians in the Public Sphere—A Case of the Paris Conference." This is a ~4 page section in the article, so yes, it is a very substantial mention. You can see this reflected in the publicly accessible abstract: "He ends with a case study analysis of the ways in which historians behave in the public sphere: the case of the researchers belonging to the so-called New Polish School of the Holocaust." The mention in the footnote in the article in the Israel Journal of Public Affairs, while much briefer, is an extended footnote consisting of an entire paragraph describing events at the conference (the paragraph starts "A recent example was at a scientific conference in Paris on February 22, 2019, devoted to “The New Polish School of Holocaust History).” So both sources are examples of the conference being cited as a case study. Philepitta (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources cited above by Philepitta and ShoahResearcher show significant coverage extending far beyond the immediate aftermath of the event itself. Passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Nsk92 (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the fact that a conference published its proceedings - which ALL conferences do - does not in any way establish "significant coverage". Volunteer Marek 19:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are published reviews of the conference proceedings, a very different thing. Nsk92 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Pretty much every conference has these. That's certainly not in GNG or any related guidelines. For a good reason. Volunteer Marek 20:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense, on both counts. Not "pretty much every conference" gets its proceedings reviewed. And we most certainly do count independent published reviews for notability purposes (that's done all the time for books and authors, in particular), that's completely standard practice. A published review in a scholarly journal (or even in a newspaper or magazine) is an independent WP:RS exactly of the kind that WP:GNG has in mind. Nsk92 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's the other way. Conference reports and reviews in academic journals are pretty standard. And no, these do not count for notability purposes - show me where it says that? Otherwise pretty much every conference would be notable. The purpose of a conference is to produce scholarly work for publication. OF COURSE it will be described in academic publications. This is like saying that a local fund raising event is notable because it was "reviewed" in the newsletter of the organization that put it on. Volunteer Marek 21:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Conference reports and reviews in academic journals are pretty standard" is just your own personal opinion and pure WP:OR. (As it happens, this opinion is also completely incorrect.) WP:GNG does not list every possible type of WP:RS that is out there. Any independent reliable source providing in-depth coverage of a particular topic qualifies under WP:GNG, and published reviews satisfy that definition. Nsk92 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's actually not. It's literally how academic conferences work. I just got done attending one. The proceedings have already been submitted to a publisher. One participant already wrote up a review and submitted it to a journal. Is this conference notable? There were about 12 people at it and as interesting as it was I doubt it will have any lasting notability. You're trying to pretend that someone just doing their job (publishing proceedings of a conference or reviewing it) automatically makes something notable. It doesn't. YOU invoked GNG. Ok. fine. Explain which part of GNG applies. Don't just throw around acronyms to justify what seems to be just a spurious WP:IJUSTLIKEIT argument. Volunteer Marek 14:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the article are: SIX from February 2019, when the conference occurred. NINE from March 2019, right after the conference occurred. FOUR from April 2019, roughly a month after the conference happened. One written in April but only made available in July. And one in September of 2019 which only mentions it in passing. So all the sources in the article are from right the time of the conference or shortly there after. There simply seems to be no indication of any long lasting importance of this event. If there are, then they should be added. If you type in "New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship" -wikipedia.org" into google you get... wikipeda mirrors... a couple of the articles from March/April... one book which is about the "school" but not the conference... and not much else. Claims made by a WP:SPA which are not possible to verify don't count. And it might be worth keeping in mind that the creator of this article has made several attempts to impersonate real life scholars, academics and activists to try to give an air of legitimacy to their socks' edits. Volunteer Marek 19:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG. Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying that something fails GNG and SUSTAINED doesn't make it so. There are four independent published scholarly reviews of the conference, published over a year after the the event [13][14][15][16]. That's plenty enough for WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Nsk92, that's actually backwards. It's up to those claiming it passes GNG to explain HOW it passes it. There's way too many accounts here just saying "passes GNG" and that's it. Anyone can throw acronyms around. That's not an argument. And as already pointed out virtually ALL conferences have published proceedings and reviews. By that standard pretty much ALL conferences would be notable. Volunteer Marek 14:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, Your first link is to the entire issue of a journal. Which article is relevant? Going by titles neither strikes me as the obvious choice. The second link is to the collected papers from the conference published in a single volume, so it is both PRIMARY and irrelevant (it's not about the conference, it's the conference - about as useful as linking to the organizational webpage for the event). This is a bit more relevant as it is an independent review of the collected papers, and discusses the conference itself, if briefly. The problem is whether the coverage of the conference meets SIGCOV, since the book, and the review, focus mainly on other issues, which can be described as the Polish historiography in general, or what some are calling the "New Polish School of Holocaust History". Which is a much broader concept than the single conference. Your last link seems to be another book review. In fact, given the last two sources, one may consider the notability of the book that was published after the conference - it might pass WP:NBOOK. But that would require rewriting our article away from the sensationalist news piece into a proper article about the book, dealing with more serious but less eye-catching topics (i.e. the individual articles presented at the conference and later published as the book chapters). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actual review articles at the above links are specified in New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference)#Published reviews of the proceedings of the conference. Each of those review articles discusses the papers presented at the conference and also the attack as well. It is true that the page would (greatly) benefit from being extended to include the discussion of the papers that were presented there, and that can and should be done. That's a reason to expand the article, not to delete it. Nsk92 (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not how this works. Look. Think about book publishing. If an academic publishes a book and it's published by a university press then it will get reviewed in academic journals. Does that make the book notable? NO. Because for many disciplines writing a book is simply the requirement for tenure. So there's thousands of books written and reviewed each year. Because that's how academic works. Same thing with conferences. There's hundreds of conferences every year and every one publishes proceedings and gets reviewed in SOME scholarly journal. None of that makes it notable. It's like saying that some plumber is notable because they did their job and unclogged some toilets. A notable conference would be something like the 1970 Philosophy conference at John Hopkins or the 1967 American Economic Conference where Milton Friedman delivered his presidential address. Both of these had a long lasting impact on a particular discipline (or sub discipline). And both are still widely referenced in publications today. This one here? It got news when it happened and aside from publishing proceedings, basically nothing since. No long lasting impact. No SUSTAINED coverage. Not notable. Volunteer Marek 14:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know not if me voting here would be ethical, however if academic reviews are too specialized for Wikipedia editors, then editors should know that the conference and the book were discussed at length on RCJ radio just last month: https://radiorcj.info/diffusions/jean-charles-szurek-les-polonais-et-la-shoah-une-nouvelle-ecole-historique-paru-aux-cnrs-edition/ YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbC5-OAfdzM . This is their monthly history program presented by Annette Wieviorka. The almost hour program is half devoted to the conference.

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Essig[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as the incumbent of a non-notable public office (WP:NPOL), with trivial coverage (WP:GNG). SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG, especially given BLP risks evident in a Google search.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I think Chief of Detectives almost certainly isn’t a notable position, but the succession box at the end shows that there are articles about the subject’s predecessors, so clearly in the past holders of the post have been deemed notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were all created by @Jimgerbig:. It would be good to understand why they think that the subject is notable. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Mccapra, hi, I thought the same thing when I was reviewing the article, but the actual position does not even have its own article. Furthermore if you take a look at the list at New York City Police Department Detective Bureau#List of chief detectives, you'll see that only 3 others have their own article, the earliest, Albert Seedman is a very well developed article which passes GNG, while the other two, Rodney K. Harrison and [Dermot Shea]], went on to other positions which much more notability, Chief of Department (which is the NYPD version of Chief of Police) and NYPD Police Commissioner. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I see. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NextStep ReUse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A single charity shop. Tagged advert since 2010. The refs are dead. Before not leading to anything other than routine local coverage. Desertarun (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too few sources and google news only brought up one news. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? How has this lasted so long? It's nearly a G11 too! Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Luckhart[edit]

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

The subject has requested its deletion. I am bringing to AfD as she clearly passes WP:NPROF. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment HickoryOughtShirt where exactly did the subject request deletion? Do you have any evidence of that? --hroest 18:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- hroest, after I tweeted the article she asked me to delete it via PM. I am more than happy to email any evidence neccessary. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hannes Röst, haha we both got usernames wrong. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - HickoryOughtShirt?4 haha, yes. I think the general procedure would be to send an email to WP:OTRS in a case like this with the screenshot attached. However, I am not sure this is strictly necessary in this case since you are an admin. PS: greetings fellow Canadian. --hroest 19:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete once I subtract the textbook citations (which has a ton of authors, it is unclear how substantial her contribution to this was) from her GS, there are only about 4k citations left, making her a slightly-above average professor that is just hovering at the bar of passing WP:NPROF. Given that the subject requested deletion, I think we can apply WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE according to Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects. --hroest 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: following up, I just received a somewhat aggressive email from her, again asking for deletion of the article. --hroest 01:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hannes Röst, I told her it would take 7 days, so I'm sorry she sent that. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think she does pass WP:PROF through the citations to her publications and maybe also through Fellowship in the American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. But the case is borderline enough that I think we should respect the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE rather than overriding it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Luckhart is not so notable in her field that if we lack an article on her people will think we are missing one of the truly top people in the field being covered. That is the level she would need to be at to overcome the fact she does not want an article on her. For the record I would also support deletion at subject request of someone who was a president of a state university that was not a top ranked public research institution, especially if the coverage from their time in that position in the news was almost all hyper local. A named chair who does not want an article on themself I would also support deleting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uju Obuekwe[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced promo/vanity piece on a non-notable business person; fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This has been to mainspace and back to Draft already. Draftifying is not recommended as an outcome. This is simple advertising cruft for a WP:ROTM businessperson. It fails WP:GNG.Referencing is unremitting poor, despite attempts by reviewer(s) to encourage enhancement. The suspicion of UPE has been denied by the creating editor, which AGF demands I honour, yet the style of the article still carries the scent of it Fiddle Faddle 18:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by DoubleGrazing & like Timtrent implied, this is definitely a subtle WP:ADMASQ of a non notable “businessperson” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore, this article has all the tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prudhoe and Stocksfield RUFC[edit]

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

Fails WP:RU/N as a non-notable club (team plays in the 9th tier). Also fails WP:GNG as I cannot find any significant coverage on the side. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the reasons above. Club is pretty far down the amateur ranks; not a close call here. CUA 27 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Article says "The club famously won promotion to Durham/Northumberland 2" but actually the article has purely local interest. Nigej (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Shields RFC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:RU/N as a non-notable rugby club (club plays in tier 8). Fails WP:GNG as I cannot find any significant coverage of the side. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Probably gets some coverage in the local paper but below the standard we should be covering. Nigej (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nowhere near notable enough to be included in a general encyclopaedia; rugby fan site might be more appropriate Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret, lack of independent sourcing, hasn't played in a higher league nor any evidence it has provided a player to a national team. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seghill RFC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NRU as a non-notable club (team plays in the 9th tier). Also fails WP:GNG as I cannot find any significant coverage on the team. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blyth RFC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:RU/N as a non-notable club (Club is a division 7 club). Also fails WP:GNG as only mentions I can find are just WP:TRIVIAL. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as far as I can see, WP:NRU only seems to give guidance on rugby players rather than clubs. Is there a notability guideline for rugby clubs or is it just GNG? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, tagged the wrong guideline. The specific club related guideline is WP:RU/N. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above linked guideline as well as WP:GNG and WP:NORG; coverage is trivial and does not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:RU/N and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Durham/Northumberland 3, not enough notability to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% sure they're in that division. Durham/Northumberland 2 is showing them in that division but it's listed as 19/20 and I haven't been able to find any information from the club stating what division they're in. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to suggest they're in 3 (whether it's true with COVID I'm not sure as the fixtures won't have happened) so redirect to as you suggested, but is it a suitable redirect given they're been promoted and relegated recently. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Below the level of sport we should be covering. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom.Sonofstar (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amod Malviya[edit]

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

Non-notable business person, search finds no RS (that is, excluding the various press release regurgitations etc.) coverage that's actually of him, not of his business ventures; fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE The article is nothing more than one line, and the sources are lackluster at best --Aknell4 (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Chirota (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sigcov and fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Far away from notabilitySonofstar (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pegah Emambakhsh[edit]

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

Article subject requests deletion OTRS Ticket # 2021021710007811. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as lacking significant coverage. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the case for notability is not very strong. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject's request and WP:BLP1E. pburka (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject's request. Furius (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a person does not want us to have an article about them, we should respect that with, unless they are a truly super well known person. Emambakhsh clearly does not meet that threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle for Oz[edit]

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

Non-notable book, cannot find a single secondary RS, let alone sigcov; fails WP:GNG / WP:NBOOK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Content in the review is a direct copy of content at ref #2 (Fandom), so plagiarism and copyright infringement. Refs 3-5 (Goodreads and Amazon) do not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I wasn't able to find anything to establish notability either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source coverage at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my search found no coverage that would establish notability. Actually, no coverage at all in reliable sources. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It isn't notable, and lacks coverage. (Also per the above) --Incagnito (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Women in the workforce. Selectively, or not at all if there's nothing from this article that isn't already at the target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Workforce[edit]

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

This is a duplicate of Women in the workforce (note different capitalization). Possibility for a selective merger, but the existing article is already pretty developed. I don't think there is much here worth merging. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Since we already have an article on this notable topic (an article that has flaws of its own), it is worth rescuing the references and possibly other material here. The article was created by a new editor, a student, and it will be great if his/her energy and enthusiasm gets preserved while learning more about Wikipedia policies. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy redirect to alt capitalization. This fork(?) was created in March 2021. No need for AfD. pburka (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to alt. This page is blatantly redundant to the point of nonsensicality and I have no idea what the reasoning behind it could’ve possibly been. Dronebogus (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: oh, wait, it was a student editor who I guess thought they needed to use Wikipedia as an essay-hosting service. Dronebogus (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge My impression is that the student editor was working on an assignment. Their plan seems to have been to add to the existing article but they worked on a userspace draft and then coulnd't figure out how to merge their additional content. Anyway, WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE apply and so we should merge so that the edit history remains visible to all. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- wouldn’t turning this into a redirect preserve the history as well? In my experience requests to merge take forever and this obviously should not be in the mainspace. Dronebogus (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily. The current page might be deleted and then a redirect created. This would be disruptive as the student would then not be able to see and discuss their work with their course leaders. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Anything that is worth merging into the main Women in the workforce article should be merged, but my impression is that that will extend to a couple of the statistics and individual refs, since the tone is very much that of a student essay. Furius (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, possibly with some information from the redundant article if it is encyclopedic. This seems to be part of a larger project of studies writing on equality & related topics: project's homepage.AnandaBliss (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the worst[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is supposed to present facts, such as "13 is the number after 12", not popular negative opinions, such as "13 is the worst number". This article talks about films in a way analogous to the latter statement. Georgia guy (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per previous AfDs. This is beating a dead horse at this point. JOEBRO64 15:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous Afd's?? This is the first nomination of this article; otherwise this Afd would need a title like "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the worst (2nd/3rd/4th... nomination)". Georgia guy (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Georgia guy, there are 10 previous AfDs listed on the talk page. JOEBRO64 15:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article's first AfD was under a different title, so there hadn't previously been an AfD titled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the worst. There have been previous AfDs, though. I've moved this AfD to say "11th nomination" so that some of the prior nominations are shown here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know why people keep nominating this. Bkatcher (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although a lot of work has gone into producing this list it is still just a list of opinions. The worst film I've ever seen was Pier 5 Havana, but it's not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athel cb (talk • contribs)
Keep Every entry is cited. Every entry is infamous for its status as bad, rather than just opinions. The inclusion criteria is difficult, with editors who have tended the page being very tough on which films to exclude. The article is one of the best cited, best "gatekept" on Wikipedia. The films are not 2-bob straight to DVD obscurities and all have their own articles, in which their status is also cited. I see no reason to delete this article for being something it's not. doktorb _words^deeds 16:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - nobody has presented a valid reason for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic per WP:NOTESAL. No policy-based or guideline-based argument was put forth in the nomination statement. Wikipedia contains content that encompasses facts and opinions from reliable sources to be included based on its policies and guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per past AFD as well as similar arguments at this recently closed AFD (for keep) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games notable for negative reception --Masem (t) 16:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every entry on this article is extensively cited, to reliable sources which call the film one of the worst of all time. There are frequent suggestions for new entries (such as the Emoji Movie thread currently on the talk page) which are rejected if extensive citations in reliable sources are not presented. The contents of the article are not the opinions of any editor or editors. CodeTalker (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For real? How many times does this need to come back here? Clearly notable for reasons established in previous WP:SNOW-closed AfDs.LM2000 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Should be closed per WP:SNOW. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lists containing subjective content are completely acceptable as long as they are linked to reliable sources, which this list is. By the logic of this AfD, we may as well delete every film and album reviews since they are just full of people stating their opinions... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "11th nomination"? Really? I know that this article has been a pain in the arse because people used to like to add stuff that they personally disliked but the inclusion criteria don't allow this. The semi-protection has put a stop to the majority of that nonsense and the rest gets removed manually. It doesn't seem to be out of control. Anyway, it is a valid subject and the effort of keeping the article clean and on-topic is just something we have to accept. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW, but I also mostly made this post just to comment on OPs "13 analogy" by pointing out that we actually do have this page.
Keep per inclement weather. Deletion Plan 11 from Outer Space has failed, just like its illustrious predecessors. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The topic of the list is itself notable, as discussions of the "worst film of all time" are frequent. And this version of such a list is well sourced to reliable and authoritative sources. I think we've reached blizzard conditions here, frankly. oknazevad (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though it's a notable topic and well sourced it is also very opinionated. One can aim to gain some sort of consensus on what is generally considered to be the worst films but in the end it's all just opinions. A garbage film to one group of people could be seen as a masterpiece to another. It's subjective and Wikipedia isn't about defining an argument, only explaining it. I would propose perhaps reshaping the article to discuss what critics believe make a bad movie bad versus listing a bunch of movies some people found to be bad. TheMovieGuy
Speedy keep. I am no fan of these ambiguous lists but after uncalculatable AfD's spanning across the project - they're here to stay. In this case, after 11 deletion discussions, this may border on disruptive. Ifnord (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Meets WP:LISTN. KidAd • SPEAK 22:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, popular opinions have always been included in the wiki since forever, otherwise there wouldn't be any "reception" and "legacy" sections in articles. enjoyer|talk 08:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Kept at least 10 times prior, most recently in 2018. Topic is notable and list has strict inclusion criteria. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as others have said, we're beating a dead horse. Strict criteria to add and everything is reliably sourced. QueerFilmNerd^talk 04:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. My person opinion as to the page itself doesn't matter. If we have any hope of being consistent over time, then the nine previous discussions should control this decision. Nothing material has changed about the page, the subject, or our standards since the last time this issue was debated. Let the horse rest.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Anderson (blogger)[edit]

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

BLP of a Ukrainian Youtuber, draft declined at AFC, moved into mainspace by creator. No sustained coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and lack of RIS. Also, I think Wikipedia should consider revising WP:ENT as to whether or not social media followings, such as YouTube in this article, equates to: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. In mind it shouldn't because people can buy followers for their platforms, but have come across editors that don't agree. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual reliable source in the article. Just Youtube links and blogs, at this point it is just promotional. TheChronium (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christophor Laidlaw[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Accomplished, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The prod was blatantly false and so is this nomination. The article already lists obituaries in The Times and Daily Telegraph and it is easy to find more such as The Guardian too. So, WP:GNG is obviously satisfied. Claiming that deletion of such a newly-created article would be uncontroversial and unlikely to be opposed seems so erroneous that discussion should be closed forthwith. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, has a knighthood, obituaries in The Times and Telegraph, has an entry in UK Who's Who Piecesofuk (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear notability as a knight per WP:ANYBIO #1, which a knighthood easily meets. Very, very clear precedent. No knight has ever been deleted at AfD. Plus obits in major national newspapers, always held to make one notable. Ridiculous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of wheel-well stowaway flights. There appears to be rough consensus that the event is notable; however, the event is not highly significant (see WP:BIO1E) and the list article already covers the salient details.. Brian Kendig (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Sapsford[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Tragic, but clearly a case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was only 14 years old and notable for a single event. That event didn't even make that much coverage. The only webpages I could find were forums and images. Koridas 📣 16:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prodded improperly without a valid rationale. WP:BIO1E does not say to delete anything – its point is whether to focus on the incident or the individual. This incident is certainly notable because there has been continuing coverage over 50 years. It happened in 1970 and so there was naturally detailed coverage at the time. A decade later, it is detailed in Photojournalism: The Professionals' Approach. Another decade later and it is detailed in Picture Editing & Layout: A Guide to Better Visual Communication. Another decade later, it's in Trapped. And then 50 years later, it's in the press such as the NZ Herald. Someone creates an article and it is prodded for "uncontroversial deletion" with a nonsensical rationale. Our actual applicable policies include WP:ATD, WP:BITE, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just browsing today's Guardian and found that there was a long read article about such stowaways which included details of this case. So, yet again, we see continuing coverage which demonstrates notability. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of wheel-well stowaway flights. Our actual policies like Notpaper also say "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion". Our actual policies like ATD say "keep" is not the only ATD. The photograph is implied above to be more notable than the individual, but both are and can be covered in the main list. Reywas92^Talk 18:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This topic does not require a free pass because the extensive and repeated coverage makes it easily pass WP:GNG. The special feature of this case is that the fall was captured in a photograph and this makes it especially unusual and notable. The list does not contain the photograph, details of the photographer and how it came to be captured. These details are best covered in the page which we already have for the purpose. Merger would be additional work for no added-value. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "The list does not contain the photograph" Damn, too bad we're not allowed to merge photos into other pages... Reywas92^Talk 17:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets WP:GNG. The coverage of the incident in 1970 was picked up by the Associated Press, and the short article and accompanying picture were redistributed worldwide, mostly on page 1, from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin (23 Feb 1970, page 1), to the Ottawa Journal (23 Feb 1970, page 1), to the San Francisco Examiner (23 Feb 1970, page 1). Then many newspapers had end-of-year "best photo of the year" sections, re-covering the event, like The Cincinnati Enquirer (3 Jan 1971, page 4-J), Fort-Meyers News-Press (12 Jan 1971, Page 6), and so on. More coverage appeared later, including The Age (Melbourne, Australia, 10 Jul 1973, page 5). Then in 1975, the AP ran with another piece on the incident that was also republished throughout the world over the coming months, like the Detroit Free Press (2 Mar 1975, page 15), Boston Globe (10 Nov 1975, page 2), The Cincinnati Enquirer (21 Dec 1975, page G-3), and so on, and I'm just randomly picking from a few of the many, many global newspapers that picked up this story throughout the years, and I only searched newspapers. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, like Andrew, I also read The Guardian article this morning and saw details of Keith's incident mentioned in the article, came here to mention it and saw that it already had been mentioned. Article link: [17], (same article but different link than what Andrew posted).RecycledPixels (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Death of Keith Sapsford and rewrite it without the plagiarism. He isn't notable, but his death was - there are still articles being written about it years later. Incidentally I have nominated the image for deletion - it was being hosted on Commons where it pretty obviously shouldn't be as it's non-free. Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still do not think the coverage we have rises above the level of news cycle coverage. We are not a newspaper. That applies as much to 50+ year old information as current.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The incident was mentioned in a Guardian article only yesterday [18] and in far more detail in the Herald only a couple of years ago [19]. There is continuing coverage here, though our article is predictably awful. Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate at Death of Keith Sapsford once the copyright problem has been dealt with, as per User:Black Kite. There is clearly continuing press coverage, enough to meet notability requirements.Ingratis (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. If there is an issue with copyright, it almost always involves poor editing, or cut and paste. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite huge walls of text and lots of external links, the article creator has failed to convince the other participants in this debate that the subject meets GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shot (rapper)[edit]

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

Non notable battle rapper who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO a WP:BEFORE under his stage name “Shot” is a total mess and a before search under his real name brings back hits in unreliable sources. The sources listed in the article are unreliable as they lack editorial oversight or do not have a reputation for fact checking, other hits are in user generated sources rendering them unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Celestina007 Hello . Glad to communicate.The rapper is not in other countries, he is known only to us in the search.This is not a reason that the article cannot be created, because we have many sources of reputable.As far as I know, a few links on different topics are enough to dispute.

https://www.intermedia.ru/news/253786 Information Agency.This person took part in the news trail in the action

https://www.zvezdi.ru/stars/2974-shot.html

This site was created for news media about famous people and has a rapper dossier

https://tengrinews.kz/music/nazvanyi-samyie-populyarnyie-internete-kazahstanskie-274665/amp/

The site is authoritative and large for news. Wikipedia about it. The publishers listed this person as the most popular artist and this is important Masterwebwiki (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterwebwiki, I suggest you use the WP:AFC method to submit any articles you may be creating in the future, in-fact, scrap that, I don’t think you should be creating any new articles anytime soon until you understand fundamental policy pertaining not just to notability, but also to what this collaborative project is really about, the tone of the article is so off that it constitutes what Wikipedia is definitely WP:NOT, as for their notability status, it is non existent. Celestina007 (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Celestina007

https://kikonline.ru/2013/06/24/lzhzhjom-kurganchikr/

The city newspaper "Kurgan and Kurgantsy" published a story about the performer's performance

https://ftimes.ru/330789-klub-27-chto-eto-spisok-muzykantov-pesnya-pamyati.html

Russian ftimes is a news agency and newspaper, published about club 27 in which he was recorded in their opinion "Shot".

Federal channels about the death of the rapper

https://ren.tv/news/v-rossii/230093-v-sotsialnykh-setiakh-soobshchili-o-smerti-repera-shot

https://m.5-tv.ru/amp/news/154658/ Masterwebwiki (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though if Mr. Totally-Didn't-Write-This-Entire-Article up there somehow wins, give it a major, MAJOR rewrite. AdoTang (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:AdoTang Please look in the article for all the links, I added, many significantMasterwebwiki (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And? What, are we supposed to let this article stay up now? It's a mess, it doesn't link anywhere, and the sources are iffy and almost certainly not deemed valid enough for Wikipedia. I'm sorry, and may Shot rest in peace, but I don't think this article is sticking around, even if it was written well. AdoTang (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:AdoTang You are a good person. Unfortunately, there are also rude people. I believe that after registering with me, it is good to create an article professionally happened.I know that a few sources are enough for significance.There are many of them there.You yourself understand that from the point of view of news, it cannot be.

In the House of Culture he spoke on the Intermedia website

https://www.intermedia.ru/news/253786

On the genius website he has a lot of songs and even a card of performers.

https://genius.com/Shot-russia-on-day-of-russia-lyrics

Even a lot of world media outlets about his death, including TV channels

https://news-r.ru/amp/news/culture/147093/ Masterwebwiki (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genius is not a good source. The Grand Theft Auto V soundtrack is on Genius, and every single song has "[Instrumental]" as its lyrics. Genius also claims Cat's in the Cradle is about Kurt Vonnegut, silver spoons, and acid. It's about parent-child bonds.

Also, that isn't a "world media outlet", that's yet another Russian news site. Because every single source you give is Russian. And no one has ever heard of them.

Here's a way to not get your article deleted: get valid, verified sources, make the article actually readable, and, y'know, make it an actual proper Wikipedia article!

Also, "a few sources are enough for significance" depends, because Wikipedia has guidelines on what is and isn't a reliable source. AdoTang (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd be willing to accept that the article could be cleaned up to help the contributor who does not speak English as his first language, but that's only if Shot the rapper were notable. Yes he has appeared in Russia media sources. I reviewed those listed by the article's supporter above, via Google translate, and they are uniformly unreliable press releases, promotional interviews, blogs, industry directories, or very short mentions of new releases. His most widespread coverage concerns his death, but to qualify for Wikipedia there must be reliable coverage of any notable things he did while alive. He generated some social media and blog buzz but I can find nothing significant and reliable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doomsdayer520 Hello. I saw the clauses in the importance rules.Interfax is an important source and he wrote an article mentioning Google.That is, two important sites named Shot'a the rapper of the year!

https://www.interfax.ru/amp/591627 Masterwebwiki (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://tass.ru/obschestvo/4808222 Masterwebwiki (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goszei Hello. You posted an orphan template in this article, although the page has links to others/Binding.

I take the opportunity to ask about another template, an authoritative article, can I remove it about deletion?

https://tass.ru/obschestvo/4808222

https://news.sputnik.ru/internet/5ac266be20839d7d923c88ef0d1f679343cf9665

https://www.altyn-orda.kz/kz/nazvany-samye-populyarnye-v-internete-kazaxstanskie-muzykanty/

https://outstyle.org/article/v-pamyati-o-kazahstanskom-ryepere-po-prozvishhu-shot

https://tengrinews.kz/music/samyie-skachivaemyie-muzyikalnyie-albomyi-opredelenyi-262946/amp/

Masterwebwiki (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Honestly, Masterwebwiki, you constantly trying to "prove us wrong" by bloating this page by linking totally-credible "world media" sources (all Russian websites) and other unreliable """important""" """sources""" like user-generated blogs and press releases (still all Russian) that just happen to mention Shot do nothing to improve the article or magically save it from the deletion process. Have you actually read the things we've told you? There's no significant, reliable, well-sourced coverage, the article fails WP:MUSICBIO, the article is terribly-written, and there are no links to it anywhere, and that's just part of the many, many issues here. God's sakes, your replies mess this page up so bad I'll probably have to reorganize this so other people scrolling through AfD don't have five aneurysms at once. If you want to save this article, get proper, actual sources that aren't blogs or sources we've identified as unreliable, then actually properly write the page so it doesn't read like a fanpage or a slangy news article. Christ, dude... AdoTang (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for musicians and ensembles 4 https://kikonline.ru/2013/06/24/lzhzhjom-kurganchikr/ , https://barnaul.bezformata.com/listnews/shot-posetit-barnaul-s-kontcertom/10613196/%3famp=1/ https://afisha.relax.by/conserts/10335766-shot/minsk/ 10 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvh5NfwfKHc (НТВ)

Recordings 1 https://everything.kz/article/18110382-novyy-trek-id23419684shot-id4874055t1one-posledniy-raz, https://tengrinews.kz/music/samyie-skachivaemyie-muzyikalnyie-albomyi-opredelenyi-262946/amp/ , album https://genius.com/albums/Shot-russia/S-h-o-t 6 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvh5NfwfKHc (НТВ)

Albums https://genius.com/albums/Shot-russia/S-h-o-t

Single https://www.xn--80aeatqv1al.xn--p1ai/az/2003/07/HTML/149-153.htm Magazine АвтоЗвук.рф

Songs https://tengrinews.kz/music/samyie-skachivaemyie-muzyikalnyie-albomyi-opredelenyi-262946/amp/

I also want to throw off other authoritative sources. https://triboona.ru/russia/16809-reper-shot-evgeniy-ilnickiy-vikipediya-foto-chto-s-nim-sluchilos.amp.html This site is mentioned in others https://archi.ru/press/issue_present.html?id=1552 Triboona ru Important site.

Extensive discussion of death https://fedpress.ru/amp/news/77/society/1860677

The most popular music artist on the Internet https://www.altyn-orda.kz/kz/nazvany-samye-populyarnye-v-internete-kazaxstanskie-muzykanty/

Most downloaded album https://tengrinews.kz/music/samyie-skachivaemyie-muzyikalnyie-albomyi-opredelenyi-262946/amp/

Tass reports that rapper Shot is one of the most popular rappers of the year according to Гугл https://tass.ru/obschestvo/4808222 Top-10 Chart

Oxxxymiron Face Гнойный Хаски Фараон Shot Мияги Раскольников Дизастер Lil Peep Masterwebwiki (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Masterwebwiki (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Masterwebwiki (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I already voted above and had my say, but after watching this trainwreck of a discussion with a certain morbid curiosity, please allow me to add that quantity does not equal quality, and terms like "authoritative" and "popular" have been severely misused by the article's supporter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Krasnow[edit]

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

Article is unreferenced except for the citation of his book. I am unable to find multiple independent sources with significant discussion of the individual. ... discospinster _talk 14:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/the-hunger-artist-6332189 as at least one journalistic source. Male anorexia is a rare phenomenon, and few autobiographies of it exists as far as I have ever found. I would argue that this makes this biography entry on Wikipedia notable, and more journalistic sources should be sought out rather than deleting the article merely due to a lack of sources. I found at least one discussion of a TV segment on WSVN Channel 7 News Miami "Men Dying To Be Thin" (1997) about Mr. Krasnow. Perhaps a recording of it exists somewhere that someone with more archival access than I would be able to find. os (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficient print coverage exists (indeed I looked up the article some years back after personally reading it). Google Books turns up a dedicated section in Anorexia and Bulimia (2009) by Elizabeth Silverthorne and in Eating Disorders (1999) by Myra Immell. Newspapers.com turns up in-depth coverage in The Observer (9 March 1996, page 2) and The Boston Globe (26 May 1988, page 79). Vaticidalprophet 17:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources above are independent and in-depth, addressing the nominator's concern. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SIGCOV is asserted but no sources presented to back this up. Sourcing in the article is mainly novelty coverage and/or unreliable sources, so I don't see that it meets SIGCOV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lili Hayes[edit]

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

I have doubts about this person. She is a popular Tik Tok bloger and Christina Aguilera mentioned her recently, but all in all it looks like WP:TOOSOON. Not sure that she passes WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; sourcing isn't strong enough. Graham87 04:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete getting passing mention does not make a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic of substantial WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Betking[edit]

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

This article was created in Draft, and the draft declined twice (see User talk:Mickyskidy and Draft:Betking). The user achieved autoconfirmed status and immediately created the article in mainspace. I have removed PR content, which was immediately reverted by the creator. What sources there are, are canonical examples of routine coverage - mainly based on press releases. In short, this is spam and while I have to assume that the "Created by Mickyskidy" in the infobox refers to the article not the company, the behaviour makes it look like COI (editor's other work includes arguing for links to his website, which has been blacklisted due to spamming). Guy (help! - typo?) 12:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. Mccapra (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references are all based on PR material. No clear assertion of notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 10:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam by a now-banned user. Fails GNG and looks like a duck.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has requested this to be closed as a withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KoreAm[edit]

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

This was a printed magazine for Korean people in America. I can find no indication that it was ever notable. The refs and external links in the article don't say anything to indicate notability. Google news likewise. Tagged advert and COI since 2012. It is now defunct. Desertarun (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a more complete search soon, but I lean toward keep. Advert and COI tags do not matter as WP:Deletion is not cleanup, and defunct status does not matter as WP:Notability is permanent. At first glance, it appears there is a strong argument that it meets WP:NMEDIA criteria 1 (have produced award winning work) and 5 (are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A WP:BEFORE search revealed plenty of sources. Asiance Magazine is in the article already, and there's also Los Angeles Times, NBC News, and Color Lines. Not all of those are ironclad on independence/reliability, but in sum they give a clear picture that this is a notable publication that has drawn substantial coverage. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Rather oddly if you search "KoreAm awards" it brings back enough hits - because they hosted the awards. Oh well, someone close this. Desertarun (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Calorie restriction. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone. Because it's been merged to "calorie restriction" by the nom, it can't be deleted. I am redirecting to that article since that's where anyone searching this will find the information. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NIA rhesus macaque calorie restriction study[edit]

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

A non-notable study that doesn't need its own page. I've merged the two paragraphs into calorie restriction already. Jack (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Jack (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Institute on Aging, otherwise delete. Mccapra (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously not a search term in need of a redirect, no indication this study needs an article but calorie restriction is a good place for some of its content. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to show this as a notable study.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Bevilacqua[edit]

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

Building technician.,No reliable source for notability, and not likely to be. DGG ( talk ) 11:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mountain named after him has its own Wikipedia article, Mount Bevilacqua. Being "head builder" of the South Pole construction crew that built the original South Pole buildings was a notable achievement, and the article is sourced to several RS. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mount Bevilacqua. At best a case of WP:BIO1E, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Onel5969, coverage is there though online coverage is sparse and hard to find. Belanger in her book Deep Freeze calls him "Charlie Belanger." Siple in his book 90 South calls him "Bev." But his role was important and is acknowledged by writers about the period and by periodicals with "Antarctic" interest such as The Antarctic Sun and the journal of the Antarctic Society. I hope this article will be kept, we have too few articles about blue-collar people who made substantial contributions while the white collar guys "supervising" them got much more glory. Per WP:HEY, note the increasing number of citations on the article, and the US Government photographs. Leading a prodigious building team, (for which he got lots of coverage in accounts by others who were there) is one event, painting the South Pole orange and black, colors it kept for 25 years thereafter is a second event, getting a mountain named after him as a third event that grew out of the previous two events, so I don't think he is BLP1E. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject was important in the history of Antarctic exploration. Added newspaper source mentioning that he made the altar for the original Chapel in the Snows. --Alan Islas (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Might well pass NFOOTY, but consensus is that he fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrul Hakim[edit]

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

Has played 94 mins over 2 games to constitute a relatively weak passing of WP:NFOOTBALL. Google searches only show trivial coverage, such as appearing at the end of a BH article, in the squad list.

Similarly, searches centred on Malaysian sources yield nothing better. Passing mentions were found in match reports for The Point, Malay Mail, Malaysia Gazette and a few others. None of this shows a passing of WP:GNG and there is clear consensus that such articles that only show a weak passing of NSPORTS and no significant coverage should be deleted from Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep passes NFOOTY and still has an active career.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We wait until someone clearly meets inclusion criteria to create an article, we do not create articles just because things might develop in the next few years to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:CSK#1, the nominator only suggested a merge (rather than deletion or redirection) and no other editors have suggested deletion or redirection. Merges may be proposed via WP:MERGEPROP. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis[edit]

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

Merge with MDR-TB as these articles are not qualitatively different between having 'multiple' drug resistance and more 'multiple' drug resistance. WP:OVERLAP and WP:DUP. Same reasoning as my deletion discussion for Totally drug-resistant tuberculosis - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep the MDR-TB, XDR-TB and TDR-TB articles; this is a misuse of the Articles for Deletion process. If you want to merge these articles, please use the ((mergefrom)) and ((mergeto)) tags instead. -- The Anome (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:CSK#1, the nominator only suggested a merge rather than deletion or redirection and no other editors have suggested deletion or redirection. Merges may be proposed via WP:MERGEPROP. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally drug-resistant tuberculosis[edit]

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

Merge with MDR-TB as these articles are not qualitatively different between having 'multiple' drug resistance and more 'multiple' drug resistance. WP:OVERLAP and WP:DUP - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep the MDR-TB, XDR-TB and TDR-TB articles; this is a misuse of the Articles for Deletion process. If you want to merge these articles, please use the ((mergefrom)) and ((mergeto)) tags instead. -- The Anome (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Mutholath[edit]

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

Non notable priest. All the references are self published or from associated pages and none exist from independent sources. Probable vanity page with a prominent link on their family website - MUTHOLATH FAMILY: FR. ABRAHAM MUTHOLATH - to this Wikipedia page . Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 04:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non notable priest and no sigcov from independent reliable sources. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very Rev Fr. Abraham Mutholath is a most reputed and Graceful Priest who live today with high reputation. I never seen any Priest is doing such a proactive selfless service to people regardless of religion, cast etc. reservations. He was a Vicar General for St. Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese, Chicago for more than twelve years and currently serving as Forane Priest of Sacred Heart Knanaya Catholic Church, Maywood, Chicago, Illinois, USA. The Priest who devote his life for poor and differently abled children- Very Rev Fr. Abraham Mutholath is a true mentor for all Seminarians and Young Priests. The Scientific development of Social Service Society and women empowerment is known to everyone and Kottayam Social Service Society and it's famous works is received several awards and recognition from several state and federal agencies and that is one of the Mutholath Achan's achievement. He save every penny he received from Priestly Job and religious services and his properties received from his father and donated to Kottayam Diocese and Kottayam Social Service Society. He is the man live his life in a very small room with most fewer amount of living expense. There are many many untold information about this Priest who is a true copy of living Christ Jesus. Very Rev Fr. Abraham Mutholath is true Priest with outmost devotion and pure heart for poor, oppressed and differently abled Children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.66.79.215 (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 103.66.79.215, I agree with your opinion. But this encyclopedia does not work like this. We need sources to verify this. Can you show some relibale sources to prove these statements. If so, I will strike out my vote. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- He appears to be one rank below bishop, but exercising a ministry on wider basis than merely a local church. Knanaya is a group within the longstanding Christian community of Kerala, India. The eparchy (diocese) of Chicago covers the whole of USA, with 42 parishes. He is also author of several books. I think there is just about enough to keep. If he were merely the minister of one church, I would have my doubts. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron He does not appear to be the head of the eparchy (its Mar Jacob Angadiath with Mar Joy Alappat as the auxiliary bishop). He is not even the head of the few Knanaya Catholic parishes in the largely Syro-Malabar Catholic eparchy per the reference provided in the article - KNANAYA REGION PARISHES AND MISSIONS - which appears to be Msgr. Thomas Mulavanal. He is only one of the priests there. Also the larger problem is the lack of references from independent sources discussing him. Jupitus Smart 16:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very Rev. Fr. Abraham Mutholath’s credibility is unquestionable and his information is recorded properly in www.Kottayamad.org, www.stthomasdiocese.org, www.knanayaregion.us, www.shkcparish.us, www.kcschicago.com and may more. His life is public record with highest reputation. He belongs to Mutholath family and this family have their own website and family tree record with family history book. As a one of the family member, his information is provided in their family webpage and it’s just. Very Rev Fr. Mutholath is given all credible proof within his page to establish who he is. It’s totally unacceptable and injustice to question him without verifying the facts from the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.66.79.56 (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry to see that someone is questioning Very Rev Fr. Abraham and his credibility. This honorable Catholic priest is a living saint with true passion and devotion to Christ Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.66.79.56 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet notability. I think considering how many under sourced articles we have on bishops, we need to revisit our presumption of notability for bishops as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article - I reviewed the article and my observation is that Abraham Mutholath is a notable priest because he is extraordinary in many aspects. Though not now, he was vicar general of a diocese, he has contributed a lot for charitable projects with a vision, even started a foundation to continue his legacy, he authored many books, and made himself a role model for many. Those who have contributed the article have proved their posting with the pictures of the buildings Abraham donated for the disabled and the books he has authored. If the policy of supporting evidence is not enough, let the authors fix them rather than deleting the whole article. I would like to see this article to be kept for the Wikipedia viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.236.73.132 (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is notability? It was interesting to read the comments at talk to discuss on deleting this article. I went through a few websites mentioned in the discussion thread to learn about Fr. Abraham. It was an interesting journey. He got few firsts to be identified as notable: the first Vicar General of the St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Diocese of Chicago and the first director of Knanaya Catholic Region. Both of them were appointed positions in catholic church by a Bishop. As a catholic priest and in the catholic community, it is notable. Furthermore, he became instrumental to establish and construct eight churches across the United States and donated few churches in the Diocese of Miao, in India.
He is also a known author. He authored few non-fiction and a fiction book. He wrote a screenplay for a Malayalam movie.
Another significantly admired but not that much popularized area of his contribution is in social service. He established a sustainable re-habilitation and empowering center for physically disabled in the state of Kerala, India. This could be an ideal model for self- supportive rehabilitation. Later, Government of India approved this center as a nodal center to train blind people. Will these credentials fall under the notable criteria of Wikipedia? I do firmly believe he is a notable person, and this page cannot delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.50.82 (talk) 2021-04-01T20:21:43 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards delete per policy arguments but could do with more input from established editors citing policy, either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT: I went through the details of this article and did some study on the data given. I am impressed with Abraham Mutholath who is different in many aspects. What attracts me is that he has done great contributions for the welfare of the disabled people.^[1] He held high positions in the church.^[2] He is the leader of Knanayology team. ^[3] He is the president of Knanaya Global Foundation and founder of Fr. Abraham Mutholathu Foundation.^[4] I would like to see this article live in Wikipedia for the information of the public. 50.236.73.130 (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy, and WP:TOOSOON. He is at the level of vicar general, which is roughly equivalent to a monsignor or canon. Those titles or ranks do not automatically give rise to notability. Priests are not automatically notable. I agree with the consensus that we not keep such articles. However, he is young enough where he could still be appointed a bishop or cardinal by the Pope. For the record, arguing over notability after 20 years that Wikipedia has been in existence is not a good faith argument. Also for the record, I am a member of the wider Catholic church, and have created several articles about bishops; I moved the Pope Francis article to its current name immediately after he was elected. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTABLE: I had started this article almost two years ago (30 July 2019) not because Abraham Mutholath was vicar general but as a person who does a lot of humanitarian activities from his own earnings. He contributed to many fields like screenplay writing, author of several popular books in Malayalam, and introduced self-help groups and community-based rehabilitation programs for the disabled in Kerala state, India. So, I considered him as a notable priest. Now the decision is yours … — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbijo1 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The conversation has been refactored to make it more readable. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "FR. ABRAHAM MUTHOLATH FOUNDATION". mutholathnagar.com.
^ "Knanaya Region". April 3, 2021 – via Wikipedia.
^ "About Us - Knanayology". June 17, 2020.
^ "FR. ABRAHAM MUTHOLATH FOUNDATION". frabrahamfoundation.org.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As noted by Daniel: Needs more policy-based input from established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Except some suspicious comments from IP's, all other users were in favour of deleting this article. This made me wonder why this was actually relisted and is taking this much time to get closed. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage. close examination shows that most of the sources given are primary non reliable sources.defcon5 (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely promotional biography about a subject that doesn't meet notability guidelines. It's too detailed with no sufficient sources. Also i have noticed a number of IPs commenting keep... definitely a promo piece. TheChronium (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thanks to Newimpartial for improving the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Cliffe[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. One source doesn't scream notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear WP:NAUTHOR pass as co-author of Ars Magica third edition (1992) and the World of Darkness storyteller book (2004) that launched the reboot of the game line as the "Chronicles of Darkness". The article needs work, but AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he's so significant, how come he's not even mentioned in either article? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP editors are not always very clever? The linkback situation is one I can (and will) fix, but again, AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There; I have cleaned up the articles slightly for each of the two main publications. Both articles are written in a style that obscures the contributions of authors and line developers, and I haven't fixed that completely, but I also didn't limit myself to Cliffe.
I am waiting to see if other editors want to improve the main bio article, but if I see no action in the next 24 hours or so I will do a scrub myself to make the claim to significance (under NAUTHOR) more credible. Newimpartial (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Once-over of bio article done. Newimpartial (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above and WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, but failing that move to draft to allow for further improvement. BOZ (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the initiative by Newimpartial. Haleth (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cardiff MCCU players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Siddique[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cardiff MCCU players 3 FC matches, but all for a uni side. A bit of coverage in match reports and from coming through the Derbyshire system but nothing significant. Looks to have become an actor but no notable roles. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cardiff MCCU players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uzair Qureshi[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cardiff MCCU players 6 FC games but all for a uni side, there's a bit of coverage in match reports, but nothing that's really significant. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muazam Ali[edit]

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

Limited coverage, non-notable cricketer, fails to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 4 FC and 9 LA matches for a county side. A simple search brought about a bit of coverage, but I imagine he would have been covered in Wisden and newspapers at the time to bring significant coverage. I've not been able to do a newspaper archive search though. List of Durham County Cricket Club players a suitable WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mateusz Gamrot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having min 3 fights under top tier promotion such as UFC or Invicta. Subject also fails GNG not having WP:SIGCOV in dept and detail coverage from WP:IS, WP:RS (IRS). Fight info are merely routine coverage. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. All the specialized sport biographies are a major nuisance, being way overly inclusive anyway. The subject fails NBIO/GNG and that's all we should care about. That said, I should note that while our article is undereferenced, Polish article about him cites dozens of news pieces - but they are all from niche portals about this minorty sport like inthecage.pl and such. So SIGCOV might exists, the problem is that it is in niche outlets of dubious reliability. Some of those sources are also WP:INTERVIEWS (best: [20]). Sample other sources, often mixing interview, press releases and videos too: [21], [22], [23]... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, for reasons mentioned above HeinzMaster (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheela Maini Søgaard[edit]

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

Not enough seprate coverage for this CEO fails WP:GNG Sliekid (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If this were shortened to relevant biographical points it would make sense as a section about the CEO on the Bjarke Ingels Group page. Seems like a better solution than losing all of the work that's been done as it could be split back out at later date, if and when needed. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While several of the sources are closely related to the subject, there are sufficient informative secondary sources to testify to notability. Additional secondary sources can easily be found in the Danish press, e.g. [24], [25].--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets general notability guidelines and plenty of other sources can be found.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears to that there is adequate coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet GNG. There seem to be at least one more substantial article not already cited:

Hun kvittede sit prestigejob og er nu topchef for stjernearkitektens 600 ansatte Efter to år hos konsulentkaempen McKinsey sagde Sheela Maini Søgaard op og dermed farvel til en i manges øjne attraktiv karrierevej. Ambitionerne om at gøre karriere forblev dog intakte. Jyllands-Posten, 17 Oct 2020

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator. The article has been developed in a very short period such that this discussion has become unnecessary. No opinions expressed except by the creating editor and the nominator (non-admin closure) Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malabika Sen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. The references are all passing mentions, though one does manage two paragraphs, but the others are substantially shorter. One is a video of her. At least one is a billing of a then upcoming performance, thus primary. Her voice work fails WP:MUSIC and I do not see her dance work as passing WP:ENTERTAINER Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN by Nominator about to be self closed. Fiddle Faddle 09:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its very unfair to ignore the tag that its placed ((under construction)) and moving it to AfD without WP:BEFORE. The person passes clearly WP:ENT and WP:GNG with WP:RS. I have not completed adding none of her TV soap opera roles (only copied from some article template). Give me some time. Run n Fly (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Run n Fly it was your decision to take this from your sandbox and create it as an article, despite the fact that you are familiar with WP:AFC where it would have been protected against an immediate deletion process, and you would have been given feedback. This process runs for seven days, giving you ample opportunity to make such improvements as are possible and may save this article. Fiddle Faddle 08:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent But you ignored the tag ((under construction)). Anyways, I will complete it vey soon. Run n Fly (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Run n Fly bring the completed work to my attention. I will reconsider at that point and, if no other editor has opined to delete I will withdraw this nomination if appropriate. If I do not withdraw it I will give reasons for not doing so Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent OK Run n Fly (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above Run n Fly (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator agrees that AAAS Fellow (now verified) meets WP:PROF; other than the SPA nominator there has been no support for the nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Eriksson[edit]

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

they don't make a credible claim of significance or importance GoingBat (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:ACADEMIC #3 as an elected fellow of two highly prestigious scholarly societies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His notability is not supported by any refs and the five refs in the article are unreliable. Being a fellow of the AAAS appears to be false based on the given reference link ‘page does not exist’ and I searched the AAAS fellows listing, and he wasn't there. GoingBat (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regarding memberships in various societies that you mentioned: We agree that for WP:ACADEMIC #3 it is not sufficient to be a regular member, but it is needed to be an elected member or fellow. Therefore, if Eriksson is one of these, you need to provide a verifiable reference. Similarly, you need to provide a reference for him being an elected fellow of AAAS. GoingBat (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominating the article for deletion already expresses the opinion that it should be deleted; you don't need to keep saying "delete". XOR'easter (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a bit of a stub, but the AAAS fellowship is easily verifiable, just search for the subject's name [26]. Being a AAAS fellow definitely satisfies PROF#3. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AAAS fellowship can be verified by the link that MoneciousTriffid provided, and the APS fellowship (which would also suffice for WP:PROF#C3 by itself) can also be verified easily [27]. And, as we would expect for someone who passes WP:PROF#C3 with room to spare, his citation record is more than good enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. Moreover, he holds a named chair and so passes WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, clearly satisfies WP:PROF#C5 and WP:PROF#C3. GoingBat please do a minimal WP:BEFORE and stop voting multiple times. --hroest 15:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What counts for establishing notability here is coverage by independent sources (meaning written by people other than the subject of the article himself). This is a basic principle of WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PROF and of all other notability guidelines. For these purposes self-citations by Eriksson himself do not count and what matters is what other scientists write about his work. If you find papers by other scholars (not authored or co-authored by Eriksson) confirming his claims, that would certainly change things. GoingBat (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBat No, this is not what counts here, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPROF and how it is generally applied. One test is the "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?. It then says "claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on." Regarding RS, it clearly states that "non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Please read those guidelines and be respectful of them before starting your own personal vendetta. --hroest 15:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment the nominator is very clearly a WP:SPA with only 9 edits so far all on this subject and seems to have decided within 3 hours of account creation and his first edit to nominate the article for deletion. This all, together with the fact that he nominated a clearly notable person for deletion, all seems quite strange. --hroest 15:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

vanity article about nn scientist who fails WP:PROF. Any reputable scientist of his age would have a similar-looking track record but that doesn't make him notable. GoingBat (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBat again, the guidelines say clearly and specifically that he is notable WP:NPROF#3, please read the guidelines before nominating someone: "3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). ". So no, not any reputable scientist will have become an AAAS fellow. It also raises the interesting question why you care so much to specifically create an account for this? --hroest 15:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, starting one's editing career by adding personal information to an article and then initiating an AfD and dropping a bunch of wiki-jargon abbreviations is a bit odd. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities influenced by Selena[edit]

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

In light of recent AFD discussions regarding "List of artists influenced by [insert name here]", I believe this too categorize as WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT. I would not reiterate my arguments here, but would like to cite my arguments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists influenced by Beyoncé. This list raises more questions than answers, is dubious, and is not what Wikipedia stands for. HĐ (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per my previous comments on the similar AFDs. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the items in the list are passing mentions in interviews without details of how they were actually influenced. Reywas92^Talk 17:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do not oppose deleting this article. I only fear that voting for this may result in its deletion, while the others possibly may not end up deleted. So if the other ones go and if this comment can then be used as a “delete” vote.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a POV fancruft used for POV pushing and providing a false notion that "everyone has been influenced by my favorite artist". We don't need that here. TolWol56 (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The creators of the this article did a lot of work tracking down interviews in which someone mentioned Selena, but unfortunately those references are overwhelmingly fan trivia. Not an informative list article per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anyone who says they were influenced by Selena can have that fact stated at their own article, if it is backed up by reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Malformed nomination created using page curation. As a result, the nominator has retracted the nomination.

The nomination was only fixed in order to close the discussion with XFDcloser.

No prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Octav Chelaru[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:NFILM; article does not meet general notability guidelines Whiteguru (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majhraut[edit]

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

The source are either self published by caste people [28], it is translated as History of Yadavs by a person himself using the surname Yadav. There are other dubious sources too, which are basically Hindu mythological books Vishnu Purana, which even donot mention them, still used to expand the article. Other have minor references but the author has tried ,WP:SYNTH of sources to prove pseudo historical facts about the community. Hence it warrant a delition as it's nothing but junk written down by members of community to distort historical facts .

- This is [29] mythical. Vishnu Purana.
- A lot of Raj Era source are used which are not considered reliable for caste articles. [30] [31]
  [32]

Heba Aisha (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~;Improvement I am improving the article and adding reference that is acceptable on wikipedia, all admins are requested to check. Kroshta (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)~~ Blocked for sockpuppetryHeba Aisha (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 08:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing useful were found. Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked socks. Mz7 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep : Rather than deleting it, I suggest it to be converted into a STUB article, as 'one of the many clans of Yadava community'. Kroshta (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep : The article is under construction. MightyAbhira (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Striking comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kroshta. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep : The article is under construction. KrishnautYadavji (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Striking comment from suspected sockpuppet of Kroshta. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep : Its very unfair to ignore the tag that its placed under construction. Rather than deleting it, I suggest it to be converted into a STUB article, as 'one of the many clans of Yadava community'. GopatiSahab (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Striking comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kroshta. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep : I have checked the article, whatever issues had raised by Heba Aisha that has been solved. Majhraut is famous Yadav clan in Bihar & Jharkhand so i think that this page should not be deleted. UnitedYadava (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Striking comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kroshta. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] Note GopatiSahab and UnitedYadava joined here 2 hours ago while MightyAbhira have only 8 edits. They all are suspected socks of Kroshta. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kroshta Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked socks. Mz7 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep : Rather than deleting it, I suggest it to be converted into a STUB article, as 'one of the many clans of Yadava community'. Kroshta (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The article is under construction. MightyAbhira (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Striking comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kroshta. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The article is under construction. KrishnautYadavji (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Striking comment from suspected sockpuppet of Kroshta. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Its very unfair to ignore the tag that its placed under construction. Rather than deleting it, I suggest it to be converted into a STUB article, as 'one of the many clans of Yadava community'. GopatiSahab (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Striking comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kroshta. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I have checked the article, whatever issues had raised by Heba Aisha that has been solved. Majhraut is famous Yadav clan in Bihar & Jharkhand so i think that this page should not be deleted. UnitedYadava (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Striking comment from confirmed sockpuppet of Kroshta. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note GopatiSahab and UnitedYadava joined here 2 hours ago while MightyAbhira have only 8 edits. They all are suspected socks of Kroshta. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kroshta Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, unless a suitable redirect can be found. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly Fails. Sonofstar (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to lack of participation. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Edited per request at 15:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Albert (writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept at AfD in a very different time for biographical notability. He's had a prolific career, but none of the projects appear notable. I can find no reviews of the novel for which he was a co-author nor any other indication he meets creative notability guidelines. Note: he does not appear to be the Scott Albert who worked on Paw Patrol. StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Writers are not automatically notable just because their work exists; they need to show some evidence of significance (notable literary or screenwriting awards, etc.), not just verification of existence. But this features no indication of significance, and it's referenced 50 per cent to directory entries (IMDb, Yahoo Movies, the self-published schedule listing of a TV channel, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all — and while the other four footnotes are real media, three of them are neighbourhood hyperlocals and/or alt-weeklies (which would be fine for use if there were other, better sources around them, but are not widely distributed enough to carry a WP:GNG pass all by themselves if they're more or less all the coverage he actually has), while the Playback hit ([33], since it hasn't actually been linked in the article) is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a piece that isn't about him, which means it's also not solid enough to vault him over the bar all by itself. And furthermore, I can find no indication that any film called Hunt for the Devil was actually produced or released at all, as there's no film of that title listed in any of Scott Albert's, John McFetridge's or Michael Madsen's IMDb profiles. Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will these publications count? [34], [35], [36]. The urls seem to prove that he is the Scott Albert who worked on Paw Patrol - see his Imdb page - [37]. Кирилл С1 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, those don't help. They're all press releases from organizations that have directly employed or contracted him, where we're looking for third party journalism about him and his work in media outlets. And even if he is the Scott Albert who worked on PAW Patrol, that still isn't an automatic notability freebie that would exempt him from actually having to have any legitimate sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why Animation World Network can not be counted as independent reliable source. I just felt that nomination should be addressed. Кирилл С1 (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging. I struck that part of my nom, although I still don't see notability for his work. StarM 15:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Animation World Network citation is that it isn't a journalist-written piece, but merely a press release from Albert's own employer that AWN reprinted verbatim. (See "Source: SkyFarm Company" at the end of it.) Even generally reliable sources will sometimes just reprint primary source press releases and/or "sponsored advertising content" without actually producing their own original reporting — so we don't just consider the source named in the URL, we also check what kind of content it is, and dismiss press releases and sponsored advertising as being worth much less than real journalism. But even if we were to accept it just because AWN would be acceptable sourcing in some other contexts, it would still take more than just one acceptable source to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 217 GB[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Almost completely uncited, poorly written, original research, all the trimmings.

Articles detail some of the many chaks (villages) in Pakistan. These are typically unsourced, or just contain mapping information as sources. Some seem to be written by residents of the chaks in question. Unlike my earlier nomination for other chaks, these are longer, but are poorly sourced and poorly written. There are very, very likely similar unsourced, non-notable, completely unnecessary articles for chaks exactly like these across Wikipedia, but these are just the ones I could find. Ah, the pain and suffering of unpaid quality control.

Here are the aforementioned "articles". I had difficulties placing the AfD notices on the articles, but they're linked here:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nomination fixed. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Peter James (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources, both of the places in Pakistan have at least as many sources cited as some places in other countries: Newtown, Isle of Wight for example. Chak village and Chuhar Chak are in India. Peter James (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:GEOLAND states that populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Would it not be possible to simply remove the unsourced material? To be fair, there are like a million Chak-x villages with articles. Some like Chak 358 JB Dulham Shareef without even coordinates should be probably deleted, but if the communities can be verified and some sources can be dug up (like this for Chak 217 from the last AfD) then they could probably just be pared down to stubs. Mbdfar (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly I don't quite understand the logic behind the article nominator's above comment - "Some seem to be written by residents of the chaks in question". Now I have been living in Michigan, US for a long time, is it considered a 'negative' for me to write or edit an article about Michigan which I may do out of fondness and a bond I have developed with it by living in the state? As long as I try to follow Wikipedia guidelines and try to keep things factual and neutral? Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gujjar Pin: 4,152 people in 725 households (2017 Pakistan Census, Faisalabad District, Punjab, page 132). Chak 219/EB: 857 people in 125 households (2017 Pakistan Census Vehari District, Punjab, page 5). Chuhar Chak: 1,760 people in 320 households (2011 India Census, Moga District, Punjab, page 52). Given the coordinates of Chak Village in UP, it looks to be in the Ramgadi Gram Panchayat, but as far as I can see does not appear in the 2011 Census, but that alone is not reason to delete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added 2 new references to the article provided above by Goldsztajn and Mbdfar. Trimmed down the article by removing unsourced material. Passes WP:GEOLAND as already suggested above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Goldsztajn and Ngrewal1: I just want you to be aware of the nominator's other similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mochiwala. Mbdfar (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Cheeseman[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable company. "Wisconsin State Journal" is the only reliable source, although its only a passing mention of its acquisition, and not about the company itself. Should be delete. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 04:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 04:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 04:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 04:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 04:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is 388 F.2d 420, of course, although I haven't looked to see how much more that gives us. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not see that in the article. I am cautious on using it to establish notability, however it should definitely be in the article if its kept. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't go by what's in the article. It's important to search for sources ourselves, otherwise we cannot honestly say that sources do not exist for writing an article. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a paragraph in Thomas 2004, p. 244 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFThomas2004 (help). It's not much, but it's documented company history, there might be more to be found, and this might all add up.
- Thomas, Matthew Michael (2004). "Where the Forest Meets the Farm: A Comparison of Spatial and Historical Change in the Euro-American and American Indian Maple Production Landscape". University of Wisconsin-Madison. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whether I might shop there or not. Non-notable local business, minor and routine coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Haug, John (1971-12-18). "Women Workers Accuse Wisconsin Cheeseman". The Capital Times. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Wisconsin Cheeseman is the largest mail order gift food business in the world. The company produces gift food packages comprised mainly of Wisconsin cheese. The company employees about 60 full-time people at their plant on the outskirts of Sun Prairie, but during the Christmas season, when almost 100 per cent of the production occurs, the company hires from 1400 to 1500 area residents as temporary workers."
2. Prindle, John R. (1958-12-07). "Cheese, Trees Keep Business Buzzing". Wisconsin State Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The company, formed in Madison in 1947 and moved to Sun Prairie in 1951, sells Wisconsin cheese gift packages by direct mail. It sends out a colored catalog booklet listing gifts, ranging in price from $2.95 to $22.95. Since its small beginning in 1947 the firm has expanded to where it is one of the biggest of its kind in the state. It annually sends out thousands of gift boxes and baskets to every state in the union and to many nationally known customers." The article further notes: "Several years ago, Cremer said, the governor of Georgia ordered a big box of Cheeseman cheese for President Truman. The box arrived at the White House all right, but without a card. Mrs. Truman called Sun Prairie to find out who sent the box, and everything was straightened out."
3. Burns, Jane (2011-01-28). "Wisconsin Cheeseman to cease operations by end of March". The Capital Times. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  The article notes: "The Sun Prairie company is comprised of three operations, Wisconsin Cheeseman gift catalog and retail store, Mille Lacs Gourmet Foods gift basket wholesaler and Scott's Fundraising Resource, a wholesaler of fundraising foods. ... The company was founded by Garvin and Helen Cremer in 1946. The current private ownership group has had the company since 2007."
4. Adams, Barry (2007-04-19). "Wisconsin Cheeseman Is Sold - Group of Eight Investors Buys 60-Year-Old Sun Prairie Mail-Order Company". Wisconsin State Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  The article notes: "Wisconsin Cheeseman was sold Wednesday by the Cremer family to an eight-member group of investors led by a Milwaukee native and Carroll College graduate with 26 years of experience in the food industry. ... [Holly] Cremer Berkenstadt's parents, Garvin and Helen Cremer, started the company on their kitchen table in 1947. Their first catalog, a small mail-order flyer, featured three gift items. The catalog has grown to more than 50 pages of cheeses, sausages, hams, jams and jellies, candy and fruit cakes."
5. Ortiz, Vikki (1996-12-10). "State Firms Get Tepid Reviews < Wisconsin Cheeseman, Swiss Colony Unmoved". The Capital Times. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  The article notes, "But if you're thinking about the Swiss Colony and Wisconsin Cheeseman holiday gift collections this season, poinsettias may be a better option, according to a report in the November Consumer Reports. After sampling merchandise from the Wisconsin-based food-catalog companies, tasters from the magazine gave both companies lukewarm reviews. Wisconsin Cheeseman, the Sun Prairie business celebrating its 50th birthday this year, was heralded for 'highest quality' cheddar cheese, but henpecked for its 'good, but barely' popcorn or 'nothing special' mixed nuts."
6. Ivey, Mike (2007-04-19). "Wisconsin Cheeseman Ownership Changes". The Capital Times. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  The article notes: "Businesswoman Holly Cremer-Berkenstadt was taught at a young age the importance of giving back to the community. When her parents, Garvin and Helen, founded the Wisconsin Cheeseman in 1946 they not only wanted to earn a comfortable living for themselves, they dreamed of creating hundreds of jobs so others could share in the benefits. Today, the company which markets holiday boxed cheese and other gift products employs over 170 at its headquarters in Sun Prairie. So the decision to sell the 60-year-old company to a group of eight investors did not come easily."
7. "Editorial: Please Move That Stupid Sign". The Capital Times. 1992-10-14. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  The editorial notes: "The Wisconsin Cheeseman up Sun Prairie way has long been one of the state's best corporate citizens. Over the years, the Cheeseman has unselfishly contributed employees' time and corporate money to in effect build Sun Prairie's celebrated Colonial Club for senior citizens. In addition, company founder Garvin Cremer has seen to it that the company takes part in several other charitable endeavors. ... So what does the state of Wisconsin do? The Department of Transportation decides to erect one of those big blue 'Food - Next Right' signs smack dab in front of the Cheeseman's display."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wisconsin Cheeseman to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Cheeseman passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
Wisconsin Cheeseman operates in Monroe, Green County, Wisconsin. The Capital Times and the Wisconsin State Journal are based in a different county: Madison, Dane County, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin State Journal is the second largest newspaper in the state. Wisconsin Cheeseman has received regional or statewide coverage.
Cunard (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wisconsin Cheeseman is notable since Wisconsin State Journal and The Capital Times have done stories on this company. Catfurball (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per arguments of Cunard. Peter303x (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many of the sources being cited as establishing notability seem to fail WP:AUD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two newspapers I cited are The Capital Times, a regional newspaper, and The Wisconsin State Journal, a regional newspaper that is the second largest newspaper in the state. Both newspapers meet the requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience that at least one source is a regional newspaper. Cunard (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject passes WP:GNG as proven by Cunard's sources. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has notable coverage for what it offers: a WI cheese company. I don't expect it to be on the cover of the NYT or WSJ but it has lots of relavent statewide coverage in WI. Ew3234 (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umid Najjari[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO WP:POET Sources are not reliable and independent. Note: Speedy deleted in French and Turkish Viki. Regards. Kemalcan (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dan Kaminsky. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White Ops[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS scope_creep^Talk 12:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dan Kaminsky: Querying with "White Ops" intitle:White intitle:Ops -wikipedia -pr, the sources found on Google News all fails the ORGIND or CORPDEPTH since the sources are press releases or cover routine events. The sources in the article are slightly better, but cannot constitute as coverage for the company according to PROJECT:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself.
Redirect per ATD-R. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dan Kaminsky as above. Topic fails WP:NCORP but redirect as per WP:ATD HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. There are some significant coverage, some passing mentions, some more than passing mentions, but many notable publications, including WSJ, FastCompany, AdWeek,Adweek (the last 2 are Ad industry leading publications). Webmaster862 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast Company reference fails WP:ORGIND, the AdWeek is a press-release also failing WP:CORPDEPTH and the WSJ article is routine news about investments, in several countries, constituting a passing mention. The Adage article is a routine annoucement of investment and partnership, which fails WP:CORPDEPTH scope_creep^Talk 08:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. J. Berchmans[edit]

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

Advertisement, has no coverage in independent sources so fails WP:GNG. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No independent, reliable, secondary sources within the article or found online. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- I know nothing of the subject but composing and (apparently) publishing 400 songs in 40 volumes (?albums) strikes me as potentially notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried to verify the information on the 400 songs but could not find any source for this. Source [5] is not a valid source as far as I can tell. --Microhierax (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I dithered over this a bit; it's unfortunate there's no such thing as a weak keep close. There does exist SIGCOV even in the relatively narrow range of "what's available online" out of decades of trade pubs. Neither keeps nor deletes expressed particularly in-depth rationales on the whole, with this close being primarily based in the input of Drmies and JBchrch (who actually gave some sources). (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 20:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electronica (trade fair)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG through lack of reliable source coverage. Created by a single-purpose account. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is incredibly promotional, and I'm about to have a look at the creator, but it appears that in trade publications there is coverage of this. If they've been around since the 1960s, they are very likely notable. I think this can be improved, and for now I'm going with a mild keep. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has been going on actively since 1964, and could meet GNG. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:NEVENTS. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I haven't looked at this in depth, but it looks like when Electronica went virtual in 2020, this was news in the electrical components community [38][39][40][41]. JBchrch (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to longevity and coverage in trade press. SPA has no bearing and there is no indication nom searched for additional sources. ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Users felt the articles were notable under WP:GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mochiwala[edit]

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

Not notable, unsourced, original research, oh my!

Articles detail some of the many chaks (villages) in Pakistan. These are typically unsourced, or just contain mapping information as sources. Some seem to be written by residents of the chaks in question. These articles are typically short. There are very, very likely similar short, unsourced, non-notable, completely unnecessary articles for chaks exactly like these across Wikipedia, but these are just the ones I could find. Ah, the pain and suffering of unpaid quality control.

Here are the aforementioned "articles". I had difficulties placing the AfD notices on the articles, but they're linked here:

AdoTang (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (copying from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chak 217 GB (2nd nomination)) WP:GEOLAND states that populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Would it not be possible to simply remove the unsourced material? if the communities can be verified and some sources can be dug up then they could probably just be pared down to stubs. Mbdfar (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 138,722 people in 21,935 households (2017 Census Jhang district, Punjab, p.54). --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a newspaper and a government census website reference today. Removed some unsourced content. Passes WP:GEOLAND now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all — in addition to the census document Goldsztajn posted, I found the other four nominated villages in similar documents. Chak 151 P is here at the bottom of page 116; Chak 356 is here at the top of page 1; Haji Chak is here on page 55 (the name is given as "Chak Haji" here); and finally Chak 71 NB is on page 73 here. I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the census data here (for example, Mochiwala seems to only be listed as an administrative unit and not an individual settlement), and some of the articles might need renaming or disambiguating, but at the very least they all pass GEOLAND. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leapfrog Press Global Fiction Contest Prize[edit]

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

$150 prize - zero in-depth coverage in searches, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely non notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- NotDelete Good to ask the question and we must remain vigilant but as an experienced Wikipedian I do not think this is close to needing deletion.
  I modelled the page after seeing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_Prize and liked the layout which I think is really clear. This prize deos have more cash but similar digital and book world footprint.
  And yes it is small compared to the Bookers and Costas but is catering to new and unknown authors and has especially attracted people from minority backgrounds one of our ambitions in Wikipedia of course that struggles with this (White Male Global North disclaimer here!).
  The latest winner, Molly Giles is a significant writer, won the Flannery O’Connor award as well as this. Was also the writing mentor for Amy Tan, “The Joy Luck Club”. Another past winner Helen Phillips was last year long-listed for the National Book Award, perhaps the most prestigious book award in the US, the book she submitted to Leapfrog in 2009, And Yet They Were Happy, was her debut published work. So to reiterate the point of the prize is that it is a launching pad for some writers, and a recognition for many already established writers. And has gone global.
  The 2019 winner, who I have just published in the US and UK last week, has just been reviewed in Shelf Awareness, perhaps the most prestigious, independent book blog/site in the US.
  I thought it did pass notability – the references include ones from Bookselller and The Literary Review which are both seriously reputable.
  And it is not a commercial puff as far as I am aware for a business making money out of the prize but another attempt at altruism in a tough creative environment.
  The facts are all verifiable and credible – I wrote it in normal neutrality mode and there are now conflicts of interest unless I write that long overdue novel one day. (Highly unlikely)
  In conclusion this is not the biggest award yet but is building (look at the names involved if you know about literature) and is adding to the sum of all human knowledge to quote Mr Wales. YellowFratello (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have looked again and de-commercialised a couple of links that, I think, adds neutrality. Hope this helps as this is a significant prize that we should help people get to if they are aspiring writers. YellowFratello (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The discussion has been refactored. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This and OP's inspiration The Story Prize are also incorrectly formatted; they use emojis, for God's sakes. AdoTang (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arguments presented in favour of keep by page author above seem weak. An award doesn't achieve notability by awarding notable authors, or by having laudable goals - it achieves notability by being covered by reliable sources. It doesn't seem to be the case that this particular award receives any coverage at all. Chajusong (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Leapfrog Press itself does not have an article. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added two more reputable citations, one from the Bookseller which is the gold standard for the books business and checked the first prize is not $150 it is $1000 though as I have pointed out it is the recognition and getting published for new talent that is the stated purpose of this award. And as to 'emojis' we call them graphics in meat space. I remember when the idea of Visual Editor was seen as the devil's works by some wikipedians. This is not an article to change the word I accept that but it IS Neutral and does add to the sum of human knowledge.YellowFratello (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Absolutely nothing more to be done. TheChronium (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Payability[edit]

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

Non-notable financial company. Reads like promotional content citing business services. Source 1 is a blog post. Source 2 there is no coverage, trivial. Source 3 is a founder interview on a site you can submit to. It's not verified coverage by any means. Source 4 is dead/not found. Source 5 is a Youtube video. Source 6 is dead/not found. Source 7 is about one of the company's products, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Source 8 is mostly about the founder with a trivial mention towards the bottom of the page. Source 9 is a link to the founder's Crunchbase profile. Source 10 is trivial. I see nothing else that would constitute this company receiving a Wikipedia page. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom's excellent source analysis and an overall lack of notability. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 03:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom rationale and source analysis by Megtetg34. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good work by Megtetg34 on analyzing the references. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D. C. Anderson[edit]

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

When the speedy was (correctly) declined, AfD was suggested, so we're here in lieu of PROD. Anderson has a long career, but it seems to be all small roles with little to no coverage to establish that he's notable per any of the creative categories. This is probably the best source and it's far from enough. StarM 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hold on thar! The title role in Pippin is not a small role. Andre in Phantom is not that small a role. It is difficult to research RS's for Anderson because of the initials and common name "Anderson". I don't think this should be deleted unless someone does a thorough job to find more sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as has prominent roles in notable theatre productions including Broadway, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find RS, appears to fail WP:ENT.-KH-1 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not there to justify inclusion. He has had significant roles, but it is less than clear that the productions he was in are notable. It is not enough to be appearing in a play that is notable, we need to show that his appearance was in a specific production of a play that was notable and that is not shown.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It should be noted that notability requires wp:verifiable evidence.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, very few citations.Peter303x (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not adequately show notability of subject. TheChronium (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is admittedly a close call, but Anderson appears to be one of those journeymen actors who has compiled a long career but without too much featured notice. He has been on Broadway but in relatively small roles, and he has had larger roles but in relatively small productions. But in the end, what really matters is a shortage of reliable and significant coverage that is actually about him in-depth, beyond listings and credits. This and This are about all I could find in terms of dedicated coverage, and they're still just brief softball introductions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Biased source but the subject does maintain his own press kit if any interested editor would like to parse for significant reliable coverage. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 20:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Timpone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

You know it's a bad sign when a biography does not contain a single reference that names the subject by name. The article was redirected in 2013 (following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Timpone) to LocalLabs, that article was in turn deleted in 2016 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LocalLabs. In 2019 the biography was recreated, and LL article now directs here, but this biography seems like an attempt to recreat the LL article, as half of the lead is about what his company/companies do. Overall, the biography is impressive (reasonably well research), but it seems to have issues with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, as WP:SIGCOV. The latter means that it is hard to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All that said, given the recent coverage like [42], [43] a case could be made that this might be rewritten back into an article about his company, network or the controversy they generated. I think there is something notable here, and his name would make a valid redirect there - wherever that would be, as I am not sure right now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I will ping editors involved in the past discussions of this topic: @GeoffreyT2000, Bernice Mosley, HighKing, ApolloLee, Allisoncornish, and DGG:. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for biographies with significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, including but not limited to the following ones already cited in the article:
1. "As Local News Dies, a Pay-for-Play Network Rises in Its Place" from The New York Times (RSP entry): 37 mentions of "Timpone"
2. "Hundreds of 'pink slime' local news outlets are distributing algorithmic stories and conservative talking points" from the Columbia Journalism Review: 14 mentions of "Timpone"
3. "Journatic worker takes 'This American Life' inside outsourced journalism" from the Poynter Institute: 11 mentions of "Timpone"

Article content does not determine notability, so if you have suggestions for improving the article, please propose them at Talk:Brian Timpone. — Newslinger talk 07:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger, CTRL+F for his name is not a great metric as some content in the articles is about " Brian Timpone’s brother, Michael Timpone", a CEO of one the relevant companies. All those articles are about the company/network, and while there is some discussion of the subject, is it not the main focus of the articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 37 mentions of "Timpone" in the New York Times article and the 11 mentions of "Timpone" in the Poynter Institute article are all referring to Brian Timpone, since Michael Timpone is not mentioned in these articles at all. 13 of the 14 mentions of "Timpone" in the Columbia Journalism Review article are about Brian Timpone; only one is about Michael Timpone. I am struggling to understand your claim that the "biography does not contain a single reference that names the subject by name", when there are 61 mentions of Brian Timpone in these three articles alone, not including the use of the "he", "his", and "him" pronouns.
The assertion that "while there is some discussion of the subject, is it not the main focus of the articles" is inaccurate and severely understates the amount of coverage the articles dedicate to Brian Timpone and his work. Timpone is notable for his work in media, which—according to the reliable sources cited in the Brian Timpone article—has been conducted under a number of company names, including Local Government Information Services (LGIS), Metric Media, Franklin Archer, Locality Labs (formerly known as Journatic and LocalLabs), DirecTech LLC, Interactive Content Services, Newsinator, Blockshopper, and The Record Inc. Many of these companies are not notable on their own, but as an article subject, Brian Timpone has exceeded the requirements in WP:GNG and WP:BASIC by receiving significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that specifically describe his role in these companies in depth. — Newslinger talk 04:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient sources. As Newslinger says, he meets WP:SIGCOV, even if the individual companies don't meet it. tedder (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be substantial RS coverage of this individual. While most of it isn't about the subject's character, the actions that he's doing and the companies he's creating and being associated with have merited RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of substantial coverage, but I would also refer his sites to WP:RSN for assessment under WP:RSP. --Minoa (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have long been an advocate of keeping BLPs of powerful people. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. H. Abdul Hameed[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio and television broadcaster, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for media personalities. The only references here are primary sources, blogs and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things, which are not support for notability -- not a single footnote here represents reliable source coverage about him at all. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with Tamil-language skills I don't have can locate some actual solid sourcing -- but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any real reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable broadcaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 20:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm puzzled on why this is relisted. Those above delete arguments are strong enough for the article to be deleted. Anyway. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Search results return a handful of sources which contain a brief description about him. Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable local broadcaster. Dan arndt (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting rather than redirecting per the last !vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dilruk Laurence[edit]

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

Nothing notable about him found in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moors Sports Club Has played 1 FC match, but couldn't find any coverage. Sources may well exist offline or in Sri Lankan sources though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. Trivial pass of the weak NCRIC does not install any confidence that coverage exists anywhere. Redirect to team is not really useful; no suitable list (where he could be mentioned) exists to redirect to. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that notability is not established. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabir Prasad Asthana[edit]

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

Survived PROD based on the encyclopedia source, but I don't see any evidence of notability and am unable to verify the claims to even see if the chair positions add up to notability together. StarM 02:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Would be notable if confirmed as former leader of the Indian National Congress, but I fail to find any English sources. Perhaps someone should double check in Hindi before a decision is made? P.S I will edit out the obvious puffery and non-encyclopedic language. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if I'm reading the second paragraph correctly, he was a committee chair, not a leader for the INC itself. StarM 11:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The committee chair of a commitee for a movement in one province of a country is not a sign of notability, and being a person who works with someone who organized a mass movement of protest is clearly not a sign of notability unless it can be documented you were one of the main organizers of the mass movement, which is not documented here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Younan Properties[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I was unable to find significant, intellectually independent coverage of Younan or his company. There are a bunch of press releases and one article [44] that seems like a puff piece with little or no independent analysis. Fails WP:NCORP. (t · c) buidhe 14:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 14:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 14:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 14:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, Are you including the list of sources provided by Cunard in the first AFD? Loopy30 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't appear to provide sufficient coverage or independent analysis of the company for NCORP to be met. (t · c) buidhe 02:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider a move to Zaya S. Younan per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sadovi, Maura Webber (2011-11-23). "Younan Keeps Aim High: Despite Setbacks, IPO in 2012 Still Possible". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
2. Pruitt, A.D. (2010-07-14). "Some REITs Flee IPO Altar". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
3. Feser, Katherine (2007-12-31). "Younan keeps up pace of expansion". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
4. Wilcox, Greg (2006-09-14). "Investor plans to head east with money". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
5. Mintz, Jenni (2008-02-24). "Westlake Village real estate investor expects big things for Oxnard harbor". Ventura County Star. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
6. Feser, Katherine (2007-07-02). "Deal of the week: Younan Properties began local real estate plan". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
7. "Flash Forward – Zaya S. Younan: Executive Decisions". CSQ. March 2014. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
8. Brown, Steve (2006-09-29). "Younan buys - Energy Square - 3 towers near Lovers Lane rail station bring its Dallas square footage to 4.7 million". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
9. Jackson, Jerry W. (2007-07-06). "Will office market continue to grow? - Zaya Younan doesn't think so. He sold his Maitland complex and is leaving Florida". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
10. Miller, Robert (2007-07-09). "Executive sponsors war exhibit". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
11. Roeder, David (2007-07-26). "Towering ambition - Developer wants world's tallest for U.S." Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Younan Properties to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources discuss Younan Properties' eponymous founder, Zaya S. Younan, who clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. One option is to rename Younan Properties to Zaya S. Younan per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider Cunard's proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oleh Myronets[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE SK2242 (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the German Wikipedia article and at the xlink, I notice he won the National Indoor Championship 2021 [45] (check "honours") and won a team gold medal in Athletics at the 2019 European Games. Does that meet WP:NATHLETE? —Kusma (t·c) 22:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether the European Games are the highest level outside the named championships in NATH and if team medals count. SK2242 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The de.wiki article has several claims to notability I.E. "In 2021 Myronez became Ukrainian indoor champion in the 800-meter run." would seem to meet WP:NATHLETE, I am not an expert on sports notability. If someone can explain how claims on de.wiki do not meet WP:NATHLETE I will change my vote. Jeepday (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists influenced by Janet Jackson[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT apply. The whole section #1, "Influence and commentary", is WP:CFORK and can be reasonably included at Janet Jackson#Legacy and influence. The list of artists who were "influenced by" Jackson is dubious--how do we define "influenced by"? What specific criteria? Does name-checking Jackson in interviews make her a so-called "influence"? This "list" raises more questions than answers, and is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. HĐ (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the arguments. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nothing encyclopedic about this arbitrary list of names (WP:LISTCRUFT). Bluesatellite (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do not oppose deleting this article. I only fear that voting for this may result in its deletion, while the others possibly may not end up deleted. So if the other ones go and if this comment can then be used as a “delete” vote.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a POV fancruft used for POV pushing and providing a false notion that "everyone has been influenced by my favorite artist". We don't need that here. TolWol56 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article actually has some useful research on Janet's widespread influence, but that is already covered at her article. This list is an unnecessary content fork that suffers from the indiscriminate problem. For anyone who says they were influenced by Janet, that fact (if backed up) can be mentioned at their own articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson[edit]

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

Yes, the King of Pop was indeed influential. Still, this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT--how do we define "influenced by" (qualitative/quantitative?) Just because some contemporary artists mentioned Michael Jackson by name in a random interview, does that make it an "influence" per-se? This list raises more questions than answers, and should not have existed in the first place. HĐ (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson is constantly "credited" or "cited" as an influence on others performers around the world. That's part of his literature as with other contemporary fellows (Madonna) or older generations (Beatles and Presley). Media responses include their own listicles/articles naming these artists as an influence and including examples, or commentaries of their influences on others. That's one of the point of difference from newer artists such as Beyoncé, Christina Aguilera etc that have their own "list of artists influenced by". Beyond this, I concur with the nomination and after thinking about these lists, I think will be better delete all of them, including this list. The topic of "Michael Jackson's influence on others performers", however, I think could perfectly develop in the Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment I do not oppose deleting this article, as I do agree that some of the content could be migrated to the cultural impact of Michael Jackson article, but the following articles MUST go too: List of artists influenced by Beyoncé, List of artists influenced by Christina Aguilera, List of artists influenced by Eminem, List of artists influenced by Janet Jackson, and List of artists influenced by Madonna.

I fear that voting for this may result in its deletion, while the others possibly may not end up deleted.TruthGuardians (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TruthGuardians, In case you did not know, I have also started AFDs for all of the lists you mentioned. Feel free to comment there as well. HĐ (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Michael Jackson and Madonna basically invented the modern pop stars. What's the point of endlessly listing all these celebrity names, when they're basically influenced the entire industry. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not exaggerate. There are plenty of artists who were not influenced by Jackson especially white rock/metal bands. castorbailey (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only if the other similar pages are kept too. Wiki should be consistent. If Madonna, Eminem, Janet Jackson have such pages Michael Jackson should too. Otherwise include this info in Jackson's Cultural impact page castorbailey (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF. HĐ (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a POV fancruft used for POV pushing and providing a false notion that "everyone has been influenced by my favorite artist". We don't need that here. TolWol56 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more and more of this lists, MJ had a huge influence on several artists but we don't need a supermarket grocery list it can be featured on his article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of musicians were influenced by MJ and rightfully so, but that does not lead to a useful list article per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anyone who says they were influenced by MJ can have that fact stated at their own article, if it is backed up by reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely conclusive if we look at the WP:OR done on this list. LearnIndology (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjabadleh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported 26 people in 7 families in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "030840" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of legal recognition required for a WP:GEOLAND no. 1 pass, no WP:GNG pass needed for WP:GEOLAND no. 2. GEOnet is a bad source, Tageo is just a mirror of GEOnet. FOARP (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per FOARP. Persian Alpha Girl (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC) sock strike. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadeqlu, Ardabil[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "025257" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of legal recognition required for a WP:GEOLAND no. 1 pass, no WP:GNG pass needed for WP:GEOLAND no. 2. No evidence of population. GEOnet is a bad source, Tageo is just a mirror of GEOnet. FOARP (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qeshlaq-e Karanlu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported 28 people in 6 families in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "025906" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant delete - No evidence of legal recognition required for a WP:GEOLAND no. 1 pass, no WP:GNG pass needed for WP:GEOLAND no. 2. GEOnet is a bad source, Tageo is just a mirror of GEOnet. The Oberling reference gave me pause but looking at it it simply mentions the site in a long list so not WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qareh Tikanlu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported 11 people in 5 families in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "025902" here.

As the article states, its population has been reported 21 people in 7 families in the 2011 census. Ctrl+F the same number here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of legal recognition required for a WP:GEOLAND no. 1 pass, no WP:GNG pass needed for WP:GEOLAND no. 2. GEOnet is a bad source. Bare census data is neither proof of legal recognition nor significant coverage. The place shown in the photo lies on the "farm" side of the "farm with lots of buildings"/"village with farms" border - it looks beautiful and I would love to visit there. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Can't find much online beside a fire in the region last year.[46] --Semsûrî (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poshteh Chahu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "522031" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bare census mentions, no proof of legal recognition, fails WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Brickworks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "491607" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same situation as at Industrial Estate, Aghajari (AfD discussion) with the only difference being that a brickworks, rather than an industrial estate, is being claimed to be a "village" or "town" here. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What I don't get is why they kept making these articles even after it should have become very obvious to them that the places in the census weren't actually "villages". They translated the names and must have known they were factories/pumps/farms etc. FOARP (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naden-e Sofla[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "245213" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of population, GEOnet is a bad source, Mapy is just a Wiki/GEOnet mirror, bare census mentions with no evidence of legal recognition. Most of the article is a discussion of how many way the name of the place can be romanised. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hannah Lodge, California[edit]

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

Lake County's "unincorporated community" list seems dominated by old resorts and the like, most of which we have been able to find little about. This is worse than most: I cannot find any reference to this that doesn't derive from GNIS or us. If it was a literal lodge, I can't find anything that says so, and if was, it's not there now; just a few scattered small houses. Mangoe (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found one passing mention in relation to a wildfire and another in relation to some obscure plant species being found near the site decades ago. Given that newspapers.com has pretty good historical coverage of Lake County based on my searches for other Lake County locations, the fact that this site garnered 0 newspapers.com hits for me is impressive. No evidence that WP:GEOLAND is met and WP:GNG is not met. Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Hannah as one of the Mayacamas Mountains could have an article written about it. There's plenty of geology. But I've come up empty on this subject too. It's not in the Arcadia Publishing book that we've been checking resorts against, for example. Uncle G (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 1998 United States Capitol shooting. Those suggesting keep have not explained why WP:BIO1E does not apply making the weighted consensus clearer. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Chestnut[edit]

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

Per recent talk page discussions at Talk:April 2021 United States Capitol car attack/Archive 1#Separate article for William Evans (police officer), I have decided to create this AfD discussion to settle the fresh debate on whether laying in honor at the United States Capitol is basis for notability on its own face. A previous AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gibson (police officer), judged that laying in honor at the Capitol is indeed a basis for notability, but that decision was made in 2007 and is subject to change over an extended period of time. Personally, I do believe the decision is strongly outdated and not a basis for notability. Outside of that, there are WP:SPLIT and WP:BLP1E concerns as well. Love of Corey (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am also nominating the following related page because it is also closely related to the discussion about articles being created on the sole basis that laying in honor at the Capitol is cause for notability:

Love of Corey (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pinging the following editors from Talk:April 2021 United States Capitol car attack/Archive 1#Separate article for William Evans (police officer) for participation: @Gildir:, @WWGB:, @WikiVirusC:, @Berchanhimez:, @Edge3:, @XavierItzm:, @Slywriter:, @148.75.194.41:, @Coasterghost:. Love of Corey (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to 1998 United States Capitol shooting — Now that we're discussing this, and potentially overturning the 2007 AfD, I agree that the articles for both Chestnut and Gibson should be merged. All of the pertinent information can be included in 1998 United States Capitol shooting, and there are no WP:LENGTH concerns for this article. I should point out that WP:BLP1E does not apply because Chestnut and Gibson died a long time ago, so WP:BIO1E is the more applicable policy. Per WP:BIO1E, The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Also see WP:VICTIM, which states, A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. And, while Brian Sicknick is not nominated here for deletion, I anticipate that it may be discussed. This matter is distinguishable from Sicknick because 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was such a complex event, and Sicknick's homicide investigation remains ongoing. Sicknick's article should remain separate, per WP:LENGTH. Edge3 (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to '98 shooting article. They are both known as a result of the one even that caused their deaths and the resulting laying in honor. Between both articles there really isn't even much to even merge. Shooting incident and some of Legacy/Honors are already included in main article. The brief bios on both subjects is also contained in shooting article, with a bit more info actually there. For instance Gibson favorite team being Red Sox and them having a moment of silence isn't even in Gibson's article but is in shooting's. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:BLP1E - these are clear cut cases, and unfortunately, some people have this idea that there is some notability guideline other than WP:GNG - per WP:SUSTAINED, Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability and If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Even a subject notability guideline which presumes notability does not trump BLP1E and GNG. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because the subjects are deceased. Do you intend to cite WP:BIO1E? Edge3 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of. BLP1E still applies to Brian Sicknick (as he is recently deceased), you're correct that BIO1E is the more appropriate guidance for the two being considered here. That being said, they're basically two methods of getting to the same conclusion - people notable only for bursts of coverage from their participation/involvement in one event are generally not meriting standalone articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 22:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to both articles, right? Love of Corey (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the article that is currently nominated for deletion. KidAd • SPEAK 05:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles currently under discussion: Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson (police officer). Do you agree that both articles should be treated in the same way? Edge3 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is a double nomination (and it appears to be because both AFD notices on both pages redirect to this page), I would suggest making this clearer to people by including the link to the 2nd article at the top of this AFD using the ((la)) and ((Find sources AFD)) templates. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did everything the WP:MULTIAFD process told me to do. I'm not sure what else I had to do to make this distinction. Love of Corey (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artticle fails BIO1E. He died before Wikipedia was even inagurated, so I think BLP cannot apply by any stretch of the imagination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. We need to consider our own unconscious bias. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian, you may wish to note that even SIGCOV states that it is a "presumption" of notability, and that BIO1E trumps that by being more specific. Furthermore, suggesting that we keep an article primarily because of "unconscious bias" (without even saying what that bias is towards/against) reeks of attempting to use Wikipedia to prove a point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What bias? Care to elaborate? Either way, bias has nothing to do with this. I've already cited a couple of substantial Wikipedia policies. Love of Corey (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A related AFD has been filed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Charles Liebengood. Edge3 (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his death doesn't appear to have any significance seeing as it appears to have just been a random shooting. Even if his death was notable, BIO1E would apply. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 17:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to both articles, right? Love of Corey (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have acknowledged 1998 United States Capitol shooting, although this refers to the shooting of both officers and the event in whole. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 17:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, also a State Funeral is very significant and deserving of an article.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case this particular editor's participation is questioned, I just want to disclose that I encouraged Yousef Raz to participate in this AFD. Shortly after my comment, WWGB raised a WP:Canvassing concern, which is currently viewable on my talk page along with my response. If WWGB or anyone else has any questions on why I encouraged Yousef Raz to participate in this discussion, I'd be happy to answer them. Edge3 (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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