The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Veljačić[edit]

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

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

Definitely accomplished, but not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG. Searches turned up dozens of mentions of her, like those which are currently in the article, not of which are in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Onel5969 most of them are in depth. Some of them are direct quotes. --Zblace (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-03 ✗ G12

• Weak keep. Granted, no single source meets the "significant coverage" criterion of the WP:GNG, but taken together they do provide coverage sufficient for a Start to C class article and do indicate accomplishments which would normally be roughly enough to consider the subject notable in her field. GregorB (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @GregorB thank you for being against @Onel5969's formalistic and deletionist approach and more for holistic understanding of a regulation. I am somewhat confused by no "significant coverage"... I hope you do not expect a single interview of all of life-achivements from mid-career practicing professional. --Zblace (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant work has been done to this article since it was first put up for deletion. Several publications with links to the original source have been added which demonstrate in-depth coverage as first requested by onel5969. The practitioner has presented in the context of the Venice Biennale which is arguable one of the most well-known art platforms worldwide and therefore should fall under the notability guidelines. --Rosa(SiC) (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Voices (American band). Missvain (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just the Beginning...[edit]

Just the Beginning... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I could not find enough coverages on this album from third-party, reliable sources to justify this having a separate article. I do not think this article meets WP:NALBUM. Aoba47 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a charted album, so it indeed passes WP:NALBUM. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If the only notable thing about this album is that it charted, then couldn't that information be easily contained in the Voices (American band) article? I just do not think charting alone is a strong enough reason to have a separate album article if the album did not receive significant coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NALBUM doesn't require that it needs to pass several notability aspects. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NALBUM says that a recording may be notable if one of the criteria met. Charting is one entry on the criteria, but as I have said in my rationale, I do not think that is a strong enough reason to support an independent album article when this charting information can be represented on the group's main article. If you read WP:NALBUM, it says the following: "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (and I have added the italics for emphasis). I do not see significant coverage on this album. Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Aoba47 comments. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Voices (American band)- fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Excepting the AllMusic review, the recording lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Charting alone is not sufficient to demonstrate notability of the album, and given that it has not received any certifications or major accolades, a standalone article is not appropriate. --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Voices (American band) as it fails WP:NALBUMS. Namkongville (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NŌVA[edit]

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

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

Non-notable singer/songwriter. Google returns nothing useful (strings: "nova rose", "nova rose" singer), with most hits being to social media or non-responsive. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete. The strongest notability claim here is a completely unsourced claim that a song went to #1 in "the correspondant radio charts", failing to clarify what "the correspondant radio charts" is or whether it's IFPI-certified. We're looking for Billboard, not just any random chart whose existence you assert but fail to verify. Nothing else stated here passes any NMUSIC criterion at all, and the sole footnote is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable blog, which is not a notability-supporting source. We are not a free public relations platform on which emerging musicians are entitled to have articles for the publicity — making it comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Bearcat, the claim of her reaching number one on the radio charts can be verified from this. Nonetheless, all sources that I could find are either interviews with subject that does not include any commentary from the interviewer which makes it neither secondary nor independent, or are questionable with little evidence of editorial oversight: 1 and 2 (except I guess this). I don't think these can be used to demonstrate notability. --Ashleyyoursmile! 04:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am certain regional charts don't count as far as notability is concerned. The article linked explicitly says "#1 spot on Quebec radio stations" (emphasis added). Also see WP:CHARTS, which emphasises nat'l charts overall. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jéské Couriano, as someone who works with music articles rigorously I'm well aware of what WP:CHARTS states. I just mentioned that the claim of the subject topping the radio chart as mentioned in the article is verifiable. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No further discussion following the relist and no clear consensus for any outcome after the initial first week. Probably worth notingvthe keep votes don't really look to address the presumption of GNG that NFOOTY asserts but minimal discussion and nothing in the last week suggests we are unlikely to obtain clear consensus. Fenix down (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Najim Haddouchi[edit]

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

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

This guy has played 13 minutes of soccer on the Dutch second tier. Although his career is still ongoing, he is now at the Belgian third (non-pro) tier and has also played on an even lower Belgian level. As one user usually writes; "scraping by on NFOOTBALL" is overridden by the general non-notability of the subject. Geschichte (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 22 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. GiantSnowman 10:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I found N1 and N2, both paywalled so not sure if WP:SIGCOV. From what I can see, it looks routine but I might be wrong. This might be significant. Not sure if a native speaker might be able to help with this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NFOOTY #2. Has WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. gidonb (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes NFOOTY, and has an active career.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing Party (Scotland)[edit]

Fishing Party (Scotland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. Recent discussions and consequent deletions for Independent Green Voice, Scottish Family Party which are active parties that are running candidates show there are recent precedents for the wider Wikipedia community agreeing that not all political parties are notable, and notability does not attach itself to political parties as a right. This article has sources, but no evidence of WP:GNG and WP:ORG and general achievement. This former political party has no evidence of achievement or notability prior to, or following, elections in its 2 years of existence 16 years ago, which is also similar to the recently deleted Publican Party article. Angryskies (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being the main subject of seven articles [1][2][3][4][5][6] in reliable sources is SIGCOV, even if the party is defunct. Also, I love this article! It's concise, well formatted, has a perfectly encyclopedic tone and doesn't overstay its welcome. A fun little article. JBchrch (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agreeGRALISTAIR (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As a matter of interest, I noticed you were in favour of deleting the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publican Party (3rd nomination) article, which was similar in the number of sources, yet with this article you want to keep it, which appears to have had less coverage than the Publican Party article which was deleted. What is the difference you see between the two articles leading you to two different conclusions regarding retaining and deleting of each article? Angryskies (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I recall, the level of coverage was actually very different. For the Publican Party, the coverage was very slim, mentioning the party only in passing, except (IIRC) for one article. Here, on the contrary, we have multiple articles covering the party in depth, as their primary subject. JBchrch (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well written with WP:RS sources and passes WP:GNG Applus2021 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seems strange that this article should be kept but then none of the other articles mentioned, which had more sources were deleted. Angryskies (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing has changed since the last AFD: with eight independent reliable sources providing significant coverage this clearly meets WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Previous four comments say it all. Emeraude (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:GNG. We really need to have a centralised discussion about the notability of political parties, and maybe think about creating a standalone guideline to reduce ambiguities in deletion discussions. How much coverage is significant coverage? How much weight do we give to electoral success (or lack of it)? I think creating a rule of thumb to use in these sorts of discussions would be preferable to the current situation, where standards are applied differently from week to week and arguments often consist of "that article was deleted/kept, so this one must be too". PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator that, as Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties, this article does not make the grade of notability and should be deleted. doktorb _words^deeds 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to PinkPanda272 - many years ago (decade or so!) I drafted my own potential soft policy for political parties. I think I'll revisit it over this Bank Holiday weekend and invite comment. As you know, you and I work well on many articles but we seem to diverge on the matter of political party notability and I'd like to see how we "gel" on forming a policy together. As Emeraude knows, they and I completely disagree on this subject, with me almost always voting "delete", and they almost always voting "keep". It would be good to Emeraude and I to also find some kind of workable compromise. We cannot, as Wikipedia generally or UK political project editors more generally, allow each and every entry on the Electoral Commission Register to have articles here. It's simply not feasible and the wider community tend to agree. So at some point I'll draft something based on my original idea and we'll get shifting. doktorb _words^deeds 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Doktorbuk, I look forward to reading your proposal. I think we both have a roughly similar idea of where that threshold should be, and I'm sure that with the assistance of other editors we will be able to come up with an acceptable solution. Regards, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per WP:N (my emphasis added) "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and (2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." As this article clearly meets WP:SIGCOV any putative guidelines for political paries would not affect the underlying established notability of this party. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Jonathan A Jones, when a party obviously passes the WP:GNG like this one, then it wouldn't be affected by any further guidelines (which I envisage to only be used in situations that aren't as clear-cut). PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 13:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sawbones (podcast)[edit]

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

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

This page is an advert for a podcast. Most of the refs link to the distribution website with a few book adverts thrown in for good measure. Before is showing various pod related websites to listen, some social media and nothing RS. It looks WP:PAID. Desertarun (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:N. Desertarun (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Perhaps you could clarify exactly what is reading like an advertisement? Then we can just clean it up. It seems to be written pretty neutrally when I read it. When I see WP:PAID, I also usually think paid contributors as well, so is there a particular COI you think needs disclosing? If it's that, that wouldnt be grounds for deletion, draftification at worst, but again, as an AfC reviewer, we're usually only checking for a neutral presentation of the facts, and this seems fairly neutral to me. I'm not seeing any overly flowery language like, "This great podcast will engross you as it teaches you about such and such..." Maybe ditch the paragraph that talks about "over 300 episodes"?

  If the concern is over the use of primary sources, these seem to be used in a way to simply states facts about the show or book, which would be valid under WP:PRIMARY #3. Those aren't needed to establish notability, since it has been covered in the other references and the ((refideas)) listed on the Talk page. The article could surely be improved, but that is not grounds for deletion, as summed up nicely in WP:AFD is not cleanup (not citing a guideline, just a POV, nobody WP:BITE, plz). -2pou (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic is not notable. It lacks WP:RS and instead has advertising links to external websites. Desertarun (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is a totally different argument that was not raised in the nomination.
  Regardless, as I said there are reliable sources covering the subject listed on the talk page, and thus WP:GNG is met given the coverage, and they are about the podcast itself. The sources WP:NEXIST and do not need to be actually cited in the article. Citing them in the article, and establishing a "Reception" section for example, would clearly improve the article, but that can be done over time in a WP:WIP project with WP:NORUSH. Here are the sources mentioned for convenience:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sawbones-invites-readers-laugh-bizarre-history-medicine https://medicalhealthhumanities.com/2017/11/30/review-sawbones-podcasting-and-the-history-of-medicine/ https://uisjournal.com/features/reviews/2019/02/06/sawbones-makes-pseudo-science-fun/

-2pou (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I amended the nomination to make the lack of notability more explicit. Desertarun (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)Thanks. Additionally, if you have Newspapers.com access, here are a couple more: small piece (29 Oct 2018, p A22) reprinted in The Province (originally from The Washington Post) and another piece shared on 16Jul2018 between Courier News p. C2 and Asbury Park Press p. 5E -2pou (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Found the original Post piece here, but if you're out of free articles, it was reprinted in The Gazette here. -2pou (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The majority of references are from Maximum Fun are link to their podcasts. These are primary sources and not a good source for demonstrating where the subject passes WP:GNG. Nexus000 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nexus000: The nomination did not raise GNG as a concern, initially, but see above for some excellent coverage the podcast has received. -2pou (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While there is a reliance on primary sources currently, there is no shortage of good secondary sources available to spruce this article up a bit. A cursory Google News search for "McElroy Sawbones" - or "Sydnee Sawbones" brings up a good number of sources that could be used here from a range of publications. I'd be happy to go through and diversify the reference list. --ERAGON (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:INHERIT we need WP:RS that relate just to the podcast "Sawbones", not the people involved (the Mcelroys/Sydnee). Irrespective, I just did a search for "Sydnee Sawbones" as you suggested and it brings back - book adverts, facebook, merchandising, et al. Desertarun (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article needs some clean-up by removing anything promotional. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG per reasons and reliable sources indicated above.. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 2pou has clearly demonstrated GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No further discussion following the relist and no clear consensus for any outcome after the initial first week. Fenix down (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Sserwadda[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Ugandan press is easily available online and even though the U-20 games wouldn't necessarily qualify him or significant coverage, a search on [kawowo.com] brings up fifteen pages of relevant results (I looked through pages 1, 14 and 15 - obviously most are just mentions, but he gets mentioned a lot) as a result of him playing U-20s and for KCCA in CAF competition, and was just linked to a move to the US this week. SportingFlyer T·C 12:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SF. GiantSnowman 18:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. I can't find any significant coverage just a bunch of mentions. Dougal18 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - there are a lot of results for him with a google search but I'm not seeing too much SIGCOV, so I would support draftifying for now as he is a young player. If anyone finds SIGCOV to back up the assertions of GNG, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Google's not the best. I've searched through looking for clear WP:GNG coverage, this is the best source: [7] There was also a national television report directly on him (I know Youtube's not a source, but the channel is legitimate): [8] Other sources which aren't as good (match reports or U-20 coverage, for instance) include: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. There's lots of mentions like [14]. On the whole - national coverage, plays for one of Uganda's top teams, multiple continental cup appearances, heaps of mentions, only 20 years old - think it's a keep, but I can't make a "clear keep" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep seems to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese as an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the Saviour Seminary[edit]

Christ the Saviour Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, did not find any good sources Cutlass^Ciera 20:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese which has room for expansion, and there is not enough sourced content for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese: fails GNG as standalone, should be redirected CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naturewalk at Seagrove[edit]

Naturewalk at Seagrove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

a master-planned community that was caught up in litigation for a long time. The sole possible claim to notability (largest bridge) is unsourced, and a BEFORE identifies no sourcing to verify this or meet WP:ORG. Note, this is a gated community-not a town so doesn't appear to be GEOLAND issue. StarM 20:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG My search for references found a couple of minor references and some self promotion. Jeepday (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Neal Guentzel[edit]

M. Neal Guentzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No good sources since 2007 Cutlass^Ciera 20:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is not temporary Dudhhr (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While notability is not temporary, there is nothing (even in the previous CV-dump versions of the article) to suggest that WP:GNG or a specific notability criterion such as WP:ACADEMIC is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete his GS profile is borderline and there are 4 papers with 100+ citations and he has an h-index of 29. However, given that even his most "impactful" publications garner about 10 citations per year I just feel the case is too weak here for WP:NPROF. --hroest 04:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. His impact is pretty standard for the median researcher publishing in his field (including techs, students, junior faculty, etc). Here are the Scopus metrics for Dr. Guentzel, his 75 coauthors*, and the ~85 most recent coauthors* of his 6 most frequent collaborators (*who have >15 papers):

Total citations: avg: 4910, median: 1884, Guentzel: 1495.

Total papers: avg: 101, med: 51, G: 76.

h-index: avg: 27, med: 21, G: 22.

Top 5 highest citations: 1st: avg: 411, med: 223, G: 92. 2nd: avg: 240, med: 150, G: 90. 3rd: avg: 185, med: 111, G: 80. 4th: avg: 157, med: 94, G: 67. 5th: avg: 131, med: 80, G: 61.

Barring notability through other NPROF criteria, keeping this would suggest we need to write articles on between 45 and 55% of everyone publishing for more than 5 years in this field. JoelleJay (talk) 07:21, 30 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) 23:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics Technician distance education program[edit]

Electronics Technician distance education program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Overly promotional and no good sources available Cutlass^Ciera 20:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete is what I would support. The whole article feels like a promotion. If this discussion results in a "keep", at least make the article conform to WP:NPOV. Wizzito (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is nothing to indicate the program is notable or has been recognized outside of narrow industry publications. The article has been glued together from low quality publications, rather than SIGCOV in independent pubs. GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appanna[edit]

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

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

BLP which is a cut and paste move from draftspace. Definitely not ready for mainspace as notability is not clearly established. Article should be deleted and draft should go through AFC when ready, Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Would have suggested draftify, but already exists in draft form. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per onel5969, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. A Google search of him doesn't show anything noteworthy.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails general notability guideline. Kaspadoo (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dubai Sports City. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DSC Indoor Arena[edit]

DSC Indoor Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No recent articles, no assertion of notability, the page is for a project that was likely never completed Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 20:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge content to Dubai Sports City as a plausible redirect, as project is part of complex. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content to Dubai Sports City as above. Namkongville (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dubai Sports City. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DSC Multi-Purpose Stadium[edit]

DSC Multi-Purpose Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of notability, only one news article provided, no sign of imminent completion. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 20:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge content to Dubai Sports City as a plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content to Dubai Sports City as per all. Namkongville (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nanuchka. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Carefully Planned Accident[edit]

A Carefully Planned Accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nominated in conjunction with band. No notability to either. Able to find single review in punknews.com. Insufficient to establish notability. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nanuchka provided the band survives the AfD. Excepting the sole review on Punknews.org, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent, has not received critical attention, or charted on national music charts, or received certifications or accolades. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nanuchka as per above. Namkongville (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Corcoran[edit]

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

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

This article has been sitting in the NPP queue since January so notability appears unclear. I can’t find any sources other than what is already in the article as refs and external links. If this is sufficient for notability it seems quite borderline to me so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More newspaper articles found and being added to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsmaoineamh1 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - I really did try here, went through a couple of archives, but I cannot find more than is presently here, and it’s not quite enough. One decent general article, and a range of lesser supports, is at least one good ref. too little. But if someone could find a little more. (Prior comment: I have reviewed for the local project, and rated, and tidied a little, and I see potential, but notability requires at least one more decent source. A dedicated article in one regional paper is a start, however, and I think I see more out there. I would not weight NPP queue time so much - I understand that if a new item is not captured in the first half-day, it can drift down the queue for months, due to review capacity issues. I will return with a !vote. (Added) For now, I see two gallery listings, plus Saatchi Online, and mentions of a third gallery, and at least two exhibitions participated in - and a self-written piece in the newspaper of record, The Irish Times, which says something, as they don't invite many to do that. I incline towards a Weak Keep.) SeoR (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's WP:TOOSOON for this artist, as after a WP:BEFORE search I found no records of museum shows, or notable museum collections. She has had a few exhibitions, one solo and a handful of group shows, but none are at notable venues. FYI Saatchi Online is user-generated content, meaning any artist can sign up to promote their work. All I find is one review, the rest are calendar listings, blogs, social media and more user-submitted content. The Irish Times piece mentioned about does not count towards notability because it is a primary source written by her; it's fine it is in the article, but we need reliable sources that have been written about her work. Maybe in a few years after she has had her work exhibited and reviewed widely there will be enough to sustain an article. Agsmaoineamh1, I noticed that you shot and uploaded the profile picture of her, just curious if are you connected to her in some way that should be disclosed? Netherzone (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there seem to be no good sources. The shows are pretty inconsequential, for example in an "arts office". It is too soon for this article.--- Possibly (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find no sources that critically review her work. A feel-good story in the Independent about her marriage does not establish notability, nor do press releases from her gallery. Her own website which describes her as an "emerging Artist". The problem with emerging artists is that they have no career to speak of, no significant body of work and very little or nothing has been written about their work. Definitely to soon for an encyclopedia entry. Vexations (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletecan't find anything that suggests notability Devokewater 13:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Rise[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage of this group. One top-89 hit which was included in a few compilation albums doesn't establish notability either. Lennart97 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to demonstrate WP:GNG. Nexus000 (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Deb (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough notable yet. Namkongville (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG & Music. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:MUSICBIO CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG Devokewater 13:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Regional Alliance[edit]

Midlands Regional Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another low-level subcounty league with only very trivial coverage in local papers. Although this article is referenced this time, the sources are all connected to the league and are not truly independent of the subject.

Google Books has two passing mentions. The three Google News hits are all, without exception, completely trivial too. Other internet searches also yield very little.

ProQuest results are almost entirely from Belper News and Ripley & Heanor News, both extremely local papers; the coverage itself is also trivial and barely extends beyond result listings and an occasional match report. I also did a British newspaper search which came back with barely anything other than mere results listings again. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non notable football league below the level of WP:NFOOTY --Whiteguru (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 13:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redhill and District Saturday Football League[edit]

Redhill and District Saturday Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable regional Saturday league playing at a level below WP:FOOTYN's presumption of notability. I'm not really seeing enough for WP:GNG either. Internet searches come back with nothing better than an utterly trivial mention in The Guardian. A reasonable number of results in newspapers, for example searches of Redhill and District Saturday League and Redhill and District Football League come up with very brief write-ups for the AGMs and fixture/result listings in local papers like Surrey Mirror, Sussex Agricultural Express and Dorking and Leatherhead Advertiser, in most cases taking up only a small portion of a column on one page. Not enough for WP:GNG in my view.

Similar case to Guildford and Woking Alliance League. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, Spiderone seems to have done the research here and I trust his judgement that this fails GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable football league, as per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, non-notable football league CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC) ][reply]
• Delete - I fully agree with the nominator's case and the above comments. This is clearly not a notable league. Dunarc (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 13:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne, California[edit]

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

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

The Australian city does a good job of obscuring this in a search, but other than some sort of soil series, the only direct reference was to it being a "road station", whatever that is. Topos and aerials show nothing inconsistent with a 4th class PO in someone's house, so I'm not seeing this as a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nominator's reasoning, and couldn't find any references on Google Scholar. Thanks. JayzBox (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron, Mendocino County, California. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Enblad[edit]

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

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

Unsourced single-sentence BLP. Previous PROD was removed because the article had a single external link; unfortunately, this link is to a primary source, the (now defunct) bank's website. I could not find anything about this guy online, aside from passing mentions in articles like this one. I do not think he meets WP:GNG, or that significant coverage exists to have even a single-sentence stub about him. If someone can find good sources where I have failed, I will withdraw this nomination. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Like the nominator, I have been unable to find any independent and reliable reporting on the man, let alone significant coverage. MarginalCost (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC) /// Neutral for now pending further source analysis. See comments below. MarginalCost (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per Julle's source summary. MarginalCost (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are a couple of decent articles in for example Dagens Industri, available through w:sv:Mediearkivet, going beyond routine coverage. I've expanded the article and added sources. I didn't know much about Enblad before I started digging, but the articles I found easily convinced me of his notability. He's been at the heart of several important cases and deals in Sweden, not least during his tenure at HQ, and is apparently one of the main subjects of at least one (non-fiction) book, Den stora bankhärvan by Carolina Neurath, about the scandals at HQ. I haven't read it, but I found this article in Resumé (magazine) naming him "one of the main characters" so I'm sure there's plenty more to add in addition to what I've found. /Julle (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping JPxG, Alexandermcnabb and MarginalCost, if you'd want to take a new look at it. /Julle (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julle There's more, I agree, but I don't think it slips him past WP:GNG unless there's significant news coverage of the attempted bank takeover with him noted as a key player. My Swedish isn't up to the search (and it might be he belongs in Swedish WP but not enwiki). Being a litigious suit who doesn't like journalists doesn't, sadly, make him notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ligitation, of course, is not relevant here, so there's no need to refure it as an argument for inclusion – it's the fact that he's one of the main subjects of a book by a respected journalist that was the point of that link. /Julle (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would consider the Dagens Industri articles enough to pass GNG. /Julle (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julle, these are indeed sources I didn't find before. Like Alexander, I am not completely sure they meet GNG. (Though, as a corrective to Alexander, I would say that Sources do not have to be available online or written in English, even on the English Wikipedia.) Going off the current article footnotes, sources 1 and 3 are behind a paywall, and my local library database doesn't have them. I am not totally convinced they are more than routine coverage, which DI has a lot of. Can you specify what exactly is in these articles about the man beyond just announcements of position changes and share sales? Footnote 4 is just routine coverage. Footnote 2 is a little stranger, with some mix of anonymous gossip and quotes from Enblad himself, which doesn't seem enough to me. The book, if published, could be significant, but I can't seem to determine if it was ever published. The article, from 2011, says it was due to be published 3 months later (August 2011 presumably), but I can't seem to find it on Amazon, WorldCat, or other general searches.

Nonetheless, I am now not at all confident in my delete vote, so I am changing to neutral for now. MarginalCost (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take another look at the DI articles later to address your question (I don't have access to them right now, as I need to be logged in to Mediearkivet) but regarding the book it was published in 2011, by Norstedts. /Julle (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so, one of them is a half-page which goes through some relevant personal history. The other is slightly shorter, but still focused on him as a person, not merely in passing and also with relevant background, not just what's happening there and then. /Julle (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check out the book the next time I'm at the library, too, which seems very relevant here but I doubt that will happen before this AfD discussion is closed. /Julle (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 4 sources still not enough IMO to meet notability. Webmaster862 (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree with Julle’s assessment that the sources are good and pushes this article to WP:GNG. That the number of sources would not indicate notability is a rationale I do not buy.BabbaQ (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ew3234 (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is largely inherited from Hagströmer & Qviberg. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without prejudice against restoration to draft if additional sources of substance can be found. BD2412 T 06:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I concur with the consensus for keep. Improve please! If you want mergers, discuss on talk page. Missvain (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster hook[edit]

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

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

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• See this advertisement. Or any scuba diver will tell you that lobster hooks exist. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into hook until enough content has been developed on the subject to merit a separate article. BD2412 T 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a total failure of our rule against dictionary definitions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Lobster hooks are common and widely known of: we need some sort of page to say what they are. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the three sources which have been added to the article since nomination; I do not see any notability issue here. Wikipedia does not have a rule against articles about things that describe what they are. Should we delete hammer and wrench? jp×g 08:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lobster fishing. That will allow us to have a much better discussion in context of the issues of development over time and regional differences in the thing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we do not need articles on every item used in various activities. So I think a redirect to lobster fishing would serve this issue much better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My search on Google Books turns up some solid sources, including:^[1][2][3] There are more recent sources as well that were only available in snippet view. These sources go beyond passing mentions or basic definitions of lobster hooks; they include detailed descriptions and commentary on how to use them, so I think the tool meets WP:GNG and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superpages[edit]

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

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

This page should be deleted as it is no longer needed. It was created as a disambiguation page for SuperMedia, deleted in 2015, and Page (computer memory)#Huge pages, a subsection which no longer existed in 2019. In 2021 an IP account edited it to promote an Indian website "Added updated information about rh superpage.this page was empty so I thought updating it would really mean a sense." TSventon (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted the obviously-spam links - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - It was a outdated disambiguation page before, and an unambiguous advertisement now. Neither should be kept. Rorshacma (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's an advertisement for a not notable company. Hardly consider it to be a Wikipedia article the way it's written. ColinBear (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly promotional. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete written as an advertisement. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wholly promotional and unnecessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this looks more promotional than encyclopedic. Kaspadoo (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:SPAM, could be also G11 CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as either an unnecessary/non-compliant disambiguation page, or an unreferenced and promotional stub. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 13:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Human cannibalism#China. Consensus is clear that we don't want to keep this as a separate article. But there is no agreement about whether to delete or merge the content. The redirection is a compromise that allows editors to figure out through the editorial process whether any of this content is worthwhile to retain and to merge from the history. Sandstein 06:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism in China[edit]

Cannibalism in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article makes wildly inaccurate and borderline racist claims about the Chinese while citing incredibly dubious sources. The article purports to show that cannibalism "has a peculiarly rich history in China". However, it uses extremely unreliable sources such as the extreme right-wing Japanese revisionist historian Jitsuzo Kuwabara (whose "academic article, incidentally, is titled using a pejorative word for China) and Commentary, a right-wing magazine that publishes neoconservative opinion pieces (not peer-reviewed academic at all). When the article does cite sources with more credibility, such as the Sydney Morning Herald, the incident involving cannibalism reported in the source is either a very localized and sparse one (in which case generalizing cannibalism as an inherent part of Chinese culture from that particular incident would be very intellectually dishonest), or is admitted by the source itself to be unverified rumours.} Nyarlathotep1001 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just want to point out that the creator of the article, going by the history of the description of their user page, is a Japanese nationalist as well as a self-described misogynist who talks about women derogatively. While they haven't been active for some time, I think they should be blocked per WP:No Nazis. Nyarlathotep1001 (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. While notable, this is more reliably covered at Human cannibalism#China. SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Human cannibalism#China and Guangxi_Massacre#Massive_cannibalism Per nom & SailingInABathTub, it's mainly linked to one major incident and would be better covered there. We don't write summary articles for isolated incidents and doing so for only one country would be WP:UNDUE. Jumpytoo Talk 00:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my vote to Redirect after reading the additional comments below. Jumpytoo Talk 05:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. This seems to be a collection of incidents as opposed to an actual overview of any potential historical practises.★Trekker (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as SailingInABathTub suggested. It would be better to expand Human cannibalism#China with content written de novo than to try to salvage anything out of this. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per XOR': the quality of this article is such that a merge would only decrease the quality of t'other. ——Serial 16:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the above linked section of the human cannibalism article. It seems a pretty isolated incident. It would be like if the Donner party were used to justify a whole article on Cannibalism in the United States. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and I think a merge wouldn't be very helpful, the content of the article is pretty garbage. Not much worth salvaging, it's written like a badly translated religious text. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this article is an attack article. BLPs by themselves prohibit this kind of rhetoric, what now about an attack on the entire populace of a country? 69.172.145.94 (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPGROUP generally only applies to small groups of people. I don't think WP:BLPGROUP can reasonably be extended to apply to countries as a whole. That being said, there are WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues in the article as it currently stands. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikehawk10:, out of curiousity, I was always under the impression that it was BLPGROUP, amongst other policies, that prohibit racist/sexist/etc-ist nonsense on the project. Is that not the case? I'm aware of NONAZIS, but that essay seems to have died without much support. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 06:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrxBrx:It's my reading that WP:NOR prevents editors from inventing racist/sexist nonesense to be placed in articles and that WP:NPOV requires us to neutrally reflect the coverage of reliable sources (rather than nonsense from the racist/sexist blogospheres), while WP:NPA prevents editors from making racist/sexist attacks against others in their capacities as an editor. WP:NONAZIS remains an essay at this time and there does not appear to be community support for making it a policy. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Jumpytoo. The article's topic appears to be notable, but it doesn't actually appear to be separately notable than those two entries, and I don't see a need for a WP:CFORK from the Human cannibalism page. There are articles in other wikipedia (such as French, Chinese, and Vietnamese wikipedias) that cover this topic. The Chinese-language article appears to be particularly long and detailed, so it may be worth it to also incorporate some of the content from there into the articles, though we should be careful in ensuring that content moved over matches the sourcing standards on this Wikipedia (the specifics on the WP:RSP equivalents do not appear to be the same, so there might be differences in community consensus on source reliability more generally). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After seeing the change in the !vote of Jumpytoo, I'm still thinking that there can be content merged into the Human cannibalism page, under the appropriate section. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I inquire what content should be merged? Nyarlathotep1001 stated below that one of the sources used in the article invalidates the other, while not talking about to actual act of cannibalism itself, instead using it as a metaphor to describe disorder during the times of twentieth century in China. I personally do not see anything salvageable in the article. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The portion from the Old Book of Tang might be well-suited under the early history section (there is currently a ~900 year gap between Jerome's letters and reports from the Crusades). Some information on the Guangxi Massacre could be merged into the China section (though to be honest it would be better to look at the material on the event's page than to lift it from this one, owing to better quality on the other page). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would agree if the Old Book of Tang portion was perhaps covered by another source, preferably not a primary one, I believe it would be a poor fit among the many scholarly sources you can see used in the Early history section. As for the Guangxi Massacre, if it were to be included, it should probably be from its higher quality main page, as you've said. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oof SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the satirical floruish doktorb _words^deeds 23:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: I'm not sure if this was a joke, but because this is obviously not an appropriate entry on that list, I have removed it. Mz7 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per CaptainEek. I don't really think any of it is worth merging, as the article consists of a list of isolated incidents and rumors, most of which would be unsuitable for the Human cannibalism article, and the descriptions have NPOV issues. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect - As I don't see what could be merged. We have other articles already about the major events as well as about Chinese traditional medicine. —PaleoNeonate – 08:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article's introduction is pure racist belief. The creator should be blocked per WP:No Nazis. STSC (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The entire page reads like a made-up xenophobic article you read on some right-wing blog. Even the introductory sentence of The practice of cannibalism (喫人) has a peculiarly rich history in China. is unfounded and based on nothing but the editor's hate towards the Chinese people. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Human cannibalism#China (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Editors have repeatedly redirected and unredirected the article since 2004. This article has existed in various iterations since 2004 such as this 13 May 2004 version, this 30 November 2010 version, and this 30 August 2017 version.

  The 2017 version of the article cites:

  Key Ray Chong (August 1990). Cannibalism in China. Hollowbrook Publishing. ISBN 9780893416188.

  which received a book review in this December 1991 article in The China Quarterly.

  I oppose deletion of the history since the history of the article may content useful content and sources that can be used to expand Human cannibalism#China even though as editors have noted, some of the 2021 version of the article is or was sourced to unreliable sources and should not be used.

  Cunard (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to disagree about the usefulness of the article's history in providing sources and content. The 2004 version of the article you linked is a stub that has no citations at all and only claims that are written with WP:NPOV issues, such as lines like "Chinese literature often says that one ate his bitter enemy. It is not just Chinese cliche but the fact". The 2010 version and 2017 versions both have basically almost the same citations as the present version of the article (with the exception of the book by Key Ray Chong you mentioned). The content in those two versions may actually be worse than the present version as they have even more claims with WP:NPOV issues which lack any citations at all. Nyarlathotep1001 (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article had at least three useful sources: Key Ray Chong's Cannibalism in China (Hollowbrook Publishing), Zheng Yi's Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China (Westview Press), and Gang Yue's The Mouth That Begs: Hunger, Cannibalism, and the Politics of Eating in Modern China (Duke University Press). I've copied the three of them here so that they are all saved. Some of the article's content is sourced to Key Ray Chong's book such as:

  According to Key Ray Chong, while the Chinese people are not particularly different from other peoples as far as the practice of "survival cannibalism" is concerned, they also have a unique form of cannibalism which he terms "learned cannibalism." Learned cannibalism is "an expression of love and hatred, and a peculiar extension of Confucian doctrine."

  ...

  Li Shizhen detailed the use of humans many times for medicinal purposes. For example, human meat was a good cure for tuberculosis. He also wrote a detailed account of the use of human sweat, urine, sperm, breast milk, tears, dirt, nails and teeth for medical purposes.

  This information is well-sourced, due weight, and can be merged to articles like Human cannibalism#China or reused in a new Cannibalism in China article. But I agree that large parts of the article are non-neutral and should not be reused. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect (do not preserve history). I have reviewed the prior revisions that Cunard mentions, and the potential that the article "may" contain useful content is simply not there. The singular book source that Cunard mentions is probably the only one worth saving. If we want to expand our coverage of this subject, we should start completely over. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In addition to the book source from Key Ray Chong that should be saved, here are two other books listed in the current version of the article that should be saved:
  1. Zheng Y (Cheng I), Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China (Westview Press, 1998) ISBN 0813326168
  2. Gang Yue, The Mouth That Begs: Hunger, Cannibalism, and the Politics of Eating in Modern China (Duke University Press, 1999) ISBN 0822323419
  The book source from Zheng Yi was reviewed in this book review written by Key Ray Chong in China Review International. The book source from Gang Yue was reviewed in this book review from the Journal of Modern Literature in Chinese from Lingnan University. These sources are reliable sources that can be used to expand Human cannibalism#China. Based on these three books, there is enough material to justify a standalone article for Cannibalism in China though it would require a rewrite not based on the current version of the article.

  Cunard (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The history should be preserved to comply with Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusing text within Wikipedia, a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. At 20:46, 26 August 2004 (UTC), Cannibalism in China was redirected to Cannibalism when it was merged to Cannibalism, which was subsequently moved to Human cannibalism.

  Cunard (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Cunard: I have downloaded and evaluated the books by Zheng Yi and Gang Yue that Cunard has mentioned and I'll link their publisher's webpage here, along with other related sources, so people can purchase/download the works legally and check that I am evaluating these books fairly. I will hesitate to credit Zheng Yi's book Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China as a reliable source because it has received its fair bit of criticism on the reliability of its writing. For instance, Gang Yue (who is, notably, the other source Cunard mentioned), writes on page 251 in his book The Mouth That Begs: Hunger, Cannibalism, and the Politics of Eating in Modern China that "(Scarlet Memorial) can and must be read as a fictional text, despite the author's claim to historical accuracy and scientific truth" and describes Scarlet memorial as "political polemic" on page 246. In fact, a large part of chapter 6 (Pages 228 - 261) in Gang Yue's book is a critique of Zheng Yi's work and its reliability. This review and this review (along with others quoted in them) also notes that the book lacks evidence, has implicit Sino-centric assumptions concerning minorities, is prone to speculation and has a political bias that underlies it's claims. Now, onto Gang Yue's book The Mouth That Begs: Hunger, Cannibalism, and the Politics of Eating in Modern China itself. His book focuses mostly on "cannibalism" and "hunger" as literary metaphors and motifs for the social and political disorder and decay in twentieth-century China rather than an actual account of cannibalism in China. Most of the book focuses only on fictional literary depictions of cannibalism, and when Gang Yue does make a statement on real-life cannibalism, he states on page 62 that "Above all, one would be hard put to believe that real cannibalism has been a systematic social practice since the dawn of Chinese civilization, and the topic is more suitable for tall tales than serious literature". To me, it just seems... very counter-productive to retain a page titled "Cannibalism in China" (even as a page that redirects to another article) just to maintain a source which itself states that cannibalism isn't a part of Chinese culture in the real world at all. As such, both sources don't really provide much reliable information about real-world practices of cannibalism in China. As per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, extraordinary claims require multiple high-quality sources. In this case, not only are there only a few sources, neither of the sources I have evaluated in this comment (which were deemed the most reliable out of the bunch) are high-quality enough in supporting the claims of cannibalism. In fact, one of the sources (Gang Yue's book) even contradicted the claims. Thus, I still think we should Delete the article and that there aren't enough good sources or content about the subject to merit a standalone page either. Nyarlathotep1001 (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not seeing this as in any way worthy of a standalone.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and retain all of the 17 years of editing history. --Ooligan (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge; this is a notable topic due to extensive coverage, especially in relation to the cultural revolution. DaysonZhang (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Human cannibalism#China, but the content isn't bad. The Cannibalism as medicine suffers from WP:NOTNEWS issues, but the historical content is OK. Batmanthe8th (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darlin van der Werff[edit]

Darlin van der Werff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Sock-created and possibly WP:TOOSOON. Only appeared in 82 minutes in the Tweede Divisie over four matches and a U-23 qualifying tournament. Some Dutch coverage but it appears similar to [15] along with a few match reports. I may have missed one, but I didn't see anything which jumped out as a clear WP:GNG pass. SportingFlyer T·C 17:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage on the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Larry H. Miller#Car dealerships. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry H. Miller Dealerships[edit]

Larry H. Miller Dealerships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Native advertising for a generic car dealer. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 17:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Larry H. Miller#Car dealerships, where some of this text can help boost that section of the founder's BLP. Nate • (chatter) 23:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Larry H. Miller#Car dealerships due to WP:NCORP violations.
• Keep as it easily meets WP:NCORP and WP:GNG (the latter meaning it doesn't even need NCORP). The company has had many articles written about it in multiple reliable sources. That said, an eye needs to be kept on the article due to the significant editing by people obviously connected to the company. The reason for my "significant" contributions is various attempts at keeping the wording neutral and removing content not good for an entry here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the analysis of all the sources by scope creep, changing to Delete. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is enough coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Lesliechin1 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has been written by a paid editor, a WP:SPA and maintained by paid editors and is a spam target. Lets look at the references:

* Leaving So Soon? The Staying Power Of Business A Forbes contributor. Its Non-RS.

* Larry's life: Behind the autobiography of Larry H. Miller This is the first of an eight-part series on the recently released book "Driven: An Autobiography" about the life of Larry H. Miller written by Deseret News columnist Doug Robinson in collaboration with Miller This is not independent, nor is it reliable. It is WP:SPS and fails WP:SIRS. It is junk.

* Larry H. Miller buying Arizona dealerships "We are not revealing the price. But it is the largest transaction in our history and among the biggest in the automobile industry over the past several years," Steve Starks, executive vice president of Larry H. Miller Management Corp., said Thursday. This is not independent, nor in-depth and fails WP:SIRS

* First-Ever Larry Miller Dealership Gains New Location The Toyota-Murray dealership is open Monday – Friday, 8:30 a.m. – 9 p.m.; Saturday 8:30 a.m. – 8 p.m., and is closed on Sundays. For more information, call the dealership at any of the following numbers: Sales: (801) 264-3800; Service: (801) 264-3850; Parts: (801) 264-3860 This is press-release and is Non-RS

* Larry H. Miller Dealerships Sells 1.5 Millionth Vehicle This is press-release and Non-RS

* Larry Miller Group CEO dons fake beard, joins Utah Jazz Dunk Team for 'Undercover Boss' This is not independent and fails WP:SIRS. It looks and reads like a press-release

* Larry H. Miller Dealerships Announces Acquisition of Lakewood Fordland in Denver This is routine announcement of acquisition that fails WP:CORPDEPTH

* Lakewood Fordland car dealer bought by Larry H. Miller Dealerships “We’ve been in a period of growth over the last two years as the auto industry is strong and the Denver market is thriving,” said Dean Fitzpatrick, president of Larry H. Miller Dealerships. This is an interview profile. Its fails WP:ORGIND specifically and it is an announcement and press-release.

Italian sports car line Alfa Romeo now available in Avondale It is press release and a routine announcement telling everybody that they stock an Alfa-Romeo model. It fails WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH

Larry H. Miller Dealerships Begins Online Parts Sales Consumers are savvy when shopping online for the best deal and the best quality item. We are committed to providing a seamless experience to our customers, and are proud to offer a quick and convenient way to purchase parts online; whether purchasing a single standalone item or in conjunction with an installation,” said Dean Fitzpatrick, president of the dealer group Another routine announcement, a press release. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS as it is not independent, nor in-depth.

So what is here is routine news and press releases for a paid-for article, that doesn't even tell you why is notable. It effectively native advertising, WP:ADMASQ and serves no other purpose. scope_creep^Talk 21:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Larry H. Miller#Car dealerships. As shown above there is not just enough reliable source material on the dealerships to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Larry H. Miller#Car dealerships per above. Batmanthe8th (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby Goat[edit]

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

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

Much like Luison, the only source I could find is Fandom. JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 17:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the content is verifiable; Get Rich Quick Porky is a cartoon with this character, and is in the public domain so I can provide a Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDX-jucbm5E . This is a minor character who is not the subject of substantial coverage; Google search feels an unremarkable restaurant in downstate Illinois is more important. As the character appeared in two cartoons, a redirect to one of those has the WP:XY problem. I don't see a list article on minor Looney Tunes characters for that era; if one exists I will support a redirect to that article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters, where he is already listed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd argue there are enough sources in Google Books to warrant the subject's continued inclusion on the site. There are also some contemporaneous pieces of information about the character if you search for it on Newspapers.com. Gargleafg (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters per above. Batmanthe8th (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#3 - the deletion argument is that the only source is Fandom, but 3 sources that refer to the topic are in the External links section. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luison[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:N-only sources I have found were from Fandom, which is not a reliable source. JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 17:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spurs For Jesus[edit]

Spurs For Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced and appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. The closest thing to significant coverage I can find is this, which doesn't seem to be all that significant. No serious claims of notability are made in the article. Lennart97 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Google search does not turn up reliable sources that are independent of the subject and talk about the subject in depth. The only hits on Google are from self-published and user-generated sites such are Discogs, Facebook, and Spotify (except this). The recordings have not charted on national music charts or have received any certifications or accolades. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ames Moot Court Competition[edit]

Ames Moot Court Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources required for WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Very well known and prestigious mooting competition. Also significant academic and non-academic coverage Journal of Legal Education New York Times. 15 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to get some coverage almost every year and is often judged by a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Brianyoumans (unsigned) above. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's probably notable, but it really needs secondary sources to demonstrate notability, which don't exist in the article at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is one of the most prominent events in American legal education. A quick search revealed numerous attorneys at leading firms who list participation in their CVs. Given the existing page for the Harvard Law Review, which is largely comparable, it seems completely appropriate to have a page. NerdOfAllTrades42 (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This article was created in 2014 and passes general notability guidelines. If there are concerns about conflict of interest, please address accordingly on article or user(s) talk pages. AfD is not the place to discuss that. Missvain (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kajsa Ekis Ekman[edit]

Kajsa Ekis Ekman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason for nomination: The article has been created by the subject: Kajsa "Ekis" Ekman, herself (aka. User Bokmal2), as a means of self promotion. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
The subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability critera outside of Sweden. See Wikipedia:Notability Diastinaut (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a vote must be preceded by a dot. Diastinaut (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, The subject is using English and Swedish Wikipedia to push her Marxist-Radical Feminist POV, as she does on social media. She is known to readers of the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, as a columnist, but virtually unknown outside Sweden. The article appears to be yet another vanity page.Diastinaut (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO! No actual reason for deletion given. AfD is not for clean-up, e.g "but virtually unknown outside Sweden". Who cares if she’s not big outside Sweden? The nominator is not normal — who voted twice and putting multiple deletion requests see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Kajsa Ekis Ekman and [16], is it really need even after putting AfD? Clearly WP:IDONTLIKE!!! VocalIndia (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Personal attacks against other editors on Wikipedia are unacceptable under any circumstances.
Comments such as "the nominator is not normal" are a violation of WP:NPA.

Reasons for "delete" or "keep" votes should be NPOV, and expressed without agression or histrionics. Diastinaut (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. AfD is not a clean up tool.19:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)BabbaQ (talk)
• Keep. Notability criteria know no national borders. Ekman has long passed any notability criteria we have, having been at the centre of more than one national debate. She's been translated into at least English, German, French, Spanish and Greek. The nomination does not indicate why she'd fail our criteria of inclusion. A glance at the article history indicates that a good number of persons have worked on the article. The nominator has not explained their reasoning as to why it would be have been written by the article subject. /Julle (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only deletion rationale seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. pburka (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:ILIKEIT (for example: because the subject is Swedish, and the voter is Swedish) is not a reason to keep an article. Diastinaut (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has no opinion on the subject. Reason for WP:AFD nominations clearly stated on user page Diastinaut (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator clearly has an opinion on the subject as indicated by the following: The subject is using English and Swedish Wikipedia to push her Marxist-Radical Feminist POV, as she does on social media. --ARoseWolf 13:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I honestly can't believe the rationale for deletion is actually "The subject does not meet Wikipedia notability critera outside of Sweden". If the subject is notable in Sweden then the subject deserves an article on any and every Wikipedia no matter the nationality or language written. If they choose not to include her then that is their business. An article was written on a notable woman who happens to be Swedish. The article is sourced and clearly proves her notability. She passes the basic GNG requirements. --ARoseWolf 13:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has no opinion on the subject. The primary reason for AfD nomination is self promotion. Wikipedia is not a soupbox, nor a social media platform. Searching for self-promotional articles and nominating them for deletion is the primary mission of the nominator. The purpose of the discussion is to reach a consensus on deletion, and nothing more. Diastinaut (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about the nominators personal mission on Wikipedia. The nominator expressed they have no opinion on the subject after stating that they somehow know who and why the article was created without producing any concrete evidence to support said claims. Where is the evidence that the creator of the article is the subject? Where is the evidence that the subject wrote the article as a self-promotional piece? I believe a reasonable nomination would be that the article is, in the nominators opinion, promotional. Unless the nominator is somehow connected to the subject and can produce definitive evidence that the creator is, in fact, the subject then the nominator themselves is POV pushing and has their own COI in regards to their mission on Wikipedia. The consensus will be what it is --ARoseWolf 14:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tsistunagiska The purpose of this discussion page is to reach a consensus on deletion, and not to present conspiracy theories. You have cast your vote, and now you must wait for the result. Diastinaut (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you cast your vote twice and continue to debate with other editors who come here to the AfD. Why should you be the only one who can continue to speak here? If you comment then others can continue to comment. If you don't want to continue to debate or discuss the article then I suggest you take your own medicine. You "cast your vote" now wait for the results. --ARoseWolf 15:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diastinaut: What is your problem ? I dont understand really ! It's very confusing here. I think you need a medicine. VocalIndia (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VocalIndia: Personal attacks against other editors on Wikipedia are unacceptable under any circumstances.
Comments such as "the nominator is not normal", or "I think you need a medicine" are a violation of WP:NPA. If you continue, you may be reported to an administrator, and risk being blocked. Diastinaut (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has cast a single vote. (a vote must be preceded by a dot, followed by delete or keep). The "reason for nomination" does not count as a vote. Diastinaut (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article was created in 2014 and has been considerably expanded by various editors since. This is hardly the time to list it for deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creation date of the article is not relevant to WP:AFD. I have successfully nominated (deleted) much older articles, which had gone un-noticed under the WikiRadar for over a decade, simply because so few ever searched for the article. Reasons for delete or keep votes should be based on Wikipedia:Deletion policy alone. Diastinaut (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: notability is not restricted to any one sovereign domain; notability is notability in all places and at all times. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dhanmondi Thana#Education. Missvain (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European Standard School[edit]

European Standard School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article cites only the school website. Searches of the usual types found no independent sources deeper than directory-type listings and passing mentions. Non-notable private school. Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's two primary references in the article and a few trivial mentions of it in school directories and an article about a student. Nothing that is in-depth or would otherwise help with notability though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dhanmondi Thana#Education - All coverage is trivial/insubstantial, so it fails the GNG. As a plausible search term, it can be redirected to the neighborhood's article, where it is mentioned. See WP:ATD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Goss[edit]

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

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

WP:SOAP, not seeing anything in the sourcing that constitutes WP:RS, not seeing sufficient evidence of notability. Acousmana 14:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Acousmana 14:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, couldn’t find any reliable sources independent of the subject. Just interviews and announcements -Xclusivzik (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage in WP:RS newspapers including Mail and Guardian and City Press. Top Billing is/was a high profile TV magazine show on the national broadcaster. Park3r (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Update: Another source: this time a radio interview (business described as "hugely successful" in interview): http://www.capetalk.co.za/articles/362550/inspirational-ceo-kirsten-goss-is-paying-it-forward-one-employee-at-a-time Park3r (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm the Mail & Guardian link [17] is a dead/broken link. The only source that supports that she was on Top bllling is a YouTube source (which is considered to be a primary source). The remaining sources are interviews which don’t show any sign of notability. -Xclusivzik (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mail and Guardian article is available at archive.org [https://web.archive.org/web/20190702144229/https://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-18-dame-of-design. I'm not sure what the YouTube insinuation is about: it would be hard to fake a national TV show clip for YouTube (WP:GLOBAL means that a source may be reliable, even if it isn't known worldwide. Top Billing is a high-profile South African TV magazine show.). There is self-promotion in her media coverage, but it isn't our job to punish successful self-promoters who have managed to gain notability.Park3r (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-I found some reliable sources. She even has her own website, www.kristingoss.com!JTZegers^Speak
  _Aura 16:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having your own website is not even vaguely a sign of notability! Anyone with a few bucks can make one.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All the coverage appears pretty promotional (and one of the listed sources is basically a copy of another one), but she appears to have enough sources for an article.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A single reference in the Mail and Guardian which is a short interview and hardly consitutes WP:THREE, nor sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The Star reference is a press-release and the rest are very poor all-in-all, including some clickbait. scope_creep^Talk 11:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Did my due diligence and the majority of sources out there are passing mentions about her jewelry. Perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON until she gets a more national or international spotlight on her work. Missvain (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia isn't your soapbox, as JTZegers points out, she has her own website which should suit such purposes adequately. (Yes, I'm aware having one's own website does not constitute notability, even I have one.) SITH (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freight House (La Crosse, Wisconsin)[edit]

Freight House (La Crosse, Wisconsin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE found no reliable sources other than Yelp and Tripadvisor JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, here's something. This provides some history for the building. And the NRHP nomination contains some significant coverage, as well. And there's this. Even more coverage out there as well; didn't list it all here. And it's on the NRHP. So Keep because this passes WP:GEOFEAT #1 and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 17:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hog Farm's argument - meets our notability requirements for buildings and passes general notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NRHP Djflem (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any structure listed on the NRHP is deemed notable. I agree, the article is lacking in details, but it can easily be expanded. The NRHP documents offer a wealth of information, from my past experience in writing railway heritage articles. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NRHP. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 12:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Hog Farm, passes obviously WP:GEOFEAT CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Kep. On the NRHP. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: NRHP. CoatGuy (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Hog Farm. Its a former Milwaukee Road depot; the freight colors are right, but the Wisconsin history org got the name wrong. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul should be Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul and Pacific. Good work, Hog Farm. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hog Farm - I don't think just being on the NRHP means a building is notable, but it does move things close to notable. The sources found easily get it over the line. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Any individual building on the NRHP is notable per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Going with the keeps on this, particularly with what User:Rhododendrites thoughtfully presented. Please feel free to clean up anything and discuss renaming on talk page. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests[edit]

List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a random list of news events. Apart from one instance in Buffalo, NY (the city I'm closest to :)) most of these events listed have only garnered one-or-two WP:ONEVENT local news articles, none of which this article has citations from national news too, making them and this list not meet WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 4/21/21: To the commenters on this discussion, there's a more heated talk going on about another list article on Tiktok Food Trends. Please join that discussion as I have, thanks 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind, that one was withdrawn within a day after the evidence I provided for that discussion. 👨x🐱 (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some of the events are not well known, but others have made bigger headlines. This article is very useful for historical reference anyways. Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why don't we just have articles on those bigger events without having them be listed with less notable events. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coincidentally, I was considering this for deletion just yesterday. The main concern I have here is that this is an indiscriminate list. Additionally, many of the incidents are subject to WP:RECENTISM and are based on sources which cite video clips or vague reports, and thus the whole context and situation were not scrutinised, meaning making claims like this aren't appropriate. This information is also covered under George Floyd protests#Violence and controversies and quite extensively at that.

Some example of listings I found particularly problematic were:

• Journalist Jonathan Ballew was broadcasting the protest when he was assaulted with a chemical agent, but the citation [18] only says he alleged that was so.
• Police shoot a protester with a pepperball round without provocation as he filmed them. the person who was reportedly shot said it was without provocation [19]. Making a claim that it was "without provocation" is completely unacceptable in this case.
• Several officers pepper sprayed a man who was yelling at them from the side of the street. in this case, the statement offers no WP:BALANCE. The source [20] clearly states defence for the officers involved, but the article makes no mention of this. Seems like WP:NPOV to me.

Another issues I have is that police are often violent - per the Cambridge Dictionary, violence is "extremely forceful actions that are intended to hurt people or are likely to cause damage". This is a common occurrence in law enforcement as arrests and force often involve hurting a suspect or causing damage. This list seems inappropriate as we would be here for years trying to list every example of police force. During the protest, the police likely arrested thousands of people, many of which would meet the definition of 'violent', but of course we do not list all of these. Also, I think the nom summarises the deletion argument pretty well. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 16:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make changes to the article, based upon the bulleted items, but I see that Feoffer already took care of it. Willbb234, Regarding the last item, would it help to have a definition of police violence - like use of excessive force than is needed for the situation? something else? to put in the article and to use as criteria for what gets added to the list?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I listed three examples of the many issues with this article. Fixing them three will not magically make the article fine. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 21:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. You made very valid points - so why not address them? I took a stab at a definition here and of course there is a link to police brutality.

I am thinking it would be really good to identify, and likely delete, any instances that were in accordance with standard police procedure for the given situations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be close to impossible to do that; most of the sources were written on the day or days after the incident occurred. Proper investigations most likely did not or will not happen due to the shear number of said incidents and the already stretched workforce. As for addressing the aforementioned issues, I believe the article should be deleted and so I have no incentive to improve the article. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 21:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above makes several points about the perceived quality or shortcomings of the present article, but doesn't articulate any reason why the principle underlying the article's existnce (i.e. LISTN) is not fulfilled. The assertion that the article content is also covered under George Floyd protests#Violence and controversies is inaccurate. Perceived problems with individual list items or the criteria for inclusion determined by consensus, should be dealt with directly or on the article talk page, not by deletion of the article. Cambial foliage❧ 23:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTNEWS. KidAd • SPEAK 17:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 19:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Civil Rights Movement-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 19:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the relevant test is WP:LISTN. The other issues mentioned have to the with the inclusion criteria, which can be changed on the article's talk page (for example, tightening sourcing requirements for inclusion). There is no requirement that individual incidents be individually notable, as LISTN says. To pass LISTN, we need to see coverage as a group. Here's what I'm seeing: The Guardian, BBC, Vox, NY Times, The Guardian, The Hill, Slate, Insider, Vice, Newsweek, NPR, The Guardian, Vox, CBS News.... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This coverage is good for talking about police violence at the George Floyd protests in general, with the most notable examples here and there. It does not justify listing every single event covered in the local news that may not be covered from these national and other-country sources. And like Willbb234 said, there is a section already in the Floyd article as general as these sources. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you should suggest tightening the inclusion criteria on the talk page. This is the kind of coverage we need to satisfy the list notability guideline, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tightening the inclusion criteria risks turning the article into a summary of the section in the George Floyd protests article. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 21:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: just adding that reframing as an article rather than the list is fine with me if someone wants to take that on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might be willing to do that. I am trying to sort out if that would make it a ((main)) article for Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests#Violence_by_police or if that section at the prose style version of the list should be merged.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • List form offers a lot of benefits, like brevity and visual cueing. It's much easier to skim/read when there's clear visual boundaries between incidents. It would take a LOT of skill and time to turn this information into prose without it becoming a repetitive, monotonous wall of text. A prose makeover would remove reader's ability to toggle between "sorted by location" and "sorted chronologically across all locations". Feoffer (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense to me (to keep it in list form).–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know you're not replying to me but I suggested article form over list form and what you've described doesn't seem like a response to any of the reasons I gave. The point is that a list of all incidents is not desirable or acceptable. We've seen factual errors in the list, indiscriminate content, and a page too long to navigate meaningfully. If I'm looking at this page, I want to see the ten most important/widely covered/egregious incidents, not hundreds of random events. The point of changing to an article would not be to do the list again but in prose, but to summarise the extent to which these incidents occurred, the main characteristics of the incidents (e.g. was there a racial bias in who was targeted?) and the way they inform people's ideologies and policy suggestions.— Bilorv (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your points, and they are valid. I just started thinking about how much easier it is to read and manage the article of a lot of incidents in list form. If it is possible, it would be nice to narrow them done to those that are clear issues... and perhaps add a column to identify race-related incidents.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think a table can convey the nuance of "This person said the incident was race-related in this way, while this person argued this other thing", and I can't imagine a reader seeing it anything other than "these incidents were really bad because they were racist" (or, "Wikipedia is calling these things racist; that's not neutral"). It also prevents the drawing of connections between different events. A list is not a good way to organize a serious analysis of a systemic issue. — Bilorv (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • You say: "I want to see the ten most important/widely covered/egregious incidents, not hundreds of random events." That makes sense. But for my part, I want to see an exhaustive tabulation of the hundreds of events that were documented by Duocette & Miller, backed up by RSes. Wikipedia is plenty big enough for a list AND a prose summary of the "top ten" incidents. Feoffer (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Batmanthe8th and Rhododendrites. WP:LISTN is the test and it's easily met. Nor are the events INDISCRIMINATEly drawn from news reports, they were first cultivated by Doucette & Miller, whose cataloging of the events was widely cited. Other concerns are talk page material. Feoffer (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Willbb234. This seems like it's just a run-down list of every single incident that involved police violence against a protestor, with absolutely no other context than "protestor got hurt real bad", which creates NPOV concerns. We don't need to list every single incident where a cop fired a pepper ball at a crowd and it gave an anarchist an ouchie. AdoTang (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LISTN and edit based upon comments by Willbb234. I will work on the edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that his is  Done already. I have an open follow-up question above about the definition of police violence.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Police violence during George Floyd protests. The scope of the list is too indiscriminate and this is a magnet for bad content (some indication above of factual issues in the current list). However, the topic is extremely notable and existing sections like George Floyd protests#Police attacks on journalists and Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests#Violence by police come nowhere close to giving it its fair coverage. The main contention by protesters is that the police are unduly and unfairly violent towards certain groups, and many people would further argue that police response to the protests themselves exemplifies that argument: giving fair weight to that view and the evidence for/against it is needed. Perhaps it will become clearer in years to come, when there is proper academic analysis of the police violence in the protests rather than rushing-to-the-publish-button news coverage, but it is already notable from Rhododendrites's list of sources covering the topic as a whole. If a move doesn't take place, this shouldn't be read in favour of keeping or deleting. — Bilorv (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Police violence during George Floyd protests, per Bilorv. The sourcing provided by Rhododendrites shows a discrete topic/spin-out topic, but the list-based framing in the current article is way off-base for an encyclopedia article. — Goszei (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LISTN. Many of the references affirm that these incidents have been discussed "as a set or group". A stand-alone list is probably the best way to present the information. In Minneapolis, our City Council passed a resolution opposing the use of "less lethal" crowd control methods as a direct result of the many incidents where protesters and journalists were injured. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]