< February 14	February 16 >

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Muzoora Kabareebe[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Honors(sic) are not sufficient to establish notability and refs are trivial, interviews, tabloid gossip etc. Nothing independent and reliable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's been a contestant in a few pageants, no major wins. Nothing of substance. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Pawz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORG. Generic pet-food retailer. scope_creep^Talk 23:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M. Kozub[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as county legislator. No other sourcing out there to meet WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete County level politicians are not generally notable and I don’t see anything that would make thus subject an exception. Mccapra (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NPOL; no sign of passing the GNG. I can only find routine and insubstantial coverage in the local press. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per others. There exists no significant coverage that shows why this person should be an exception to WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County legislature is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to deem him a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. LucyLucy (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people in county government are never default notable, and the sources suggest no notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OnlyThenDidI (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devoke water 11:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete County legislators fall below WP:NPOL and the subject has nothing but routine coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treephort[edit]

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

I don't see any indication that this band is notable, and at least on of the article's editors is a former member of the band. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funny band, but I don't see their notability. All I found when I searched for them are the standard junk sites. Punknews.org, which is otherwise reliable, is blank. I have found some album reviews, but the sites don't look too reliable. So yeah, they are not notable. Same goes for The Emotron. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of albums over many years but no reliable media coverage, even from their local scene. While they have an AllMusic biography ([1]) and a couple of album reviews at that site, I consider that a lucky break because the AllMusic author may know them personally or saw a gig. Otherwise their media notice is so microscopic that not even AllMusic can save them. The article's desperate groping for notability can be seen in the sentence about how they got attention for a tour, but the source is a local newspaper that gave them a bad review for one club gig. I found one other slightly friendlier local gig review ([2]), but otherwise they are only visible in a few self-uploaded social media items, and even those are rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hog Farm _Talk 02:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Emotron[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has changed since the last AfD, which you could plausibly argue should have ended with a delete vote. The only sources I can find are the local music journals who write about any musician that plays their city. If this wasn't an established article that had already been thru AfD, I would consider this for speedy delete. I'm not redirecting to his former band Treephort, since it doesn't appear to be notable either. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -"A one man musical group...."?! Sorry but this just doesn't make any sense. Notwithstanding this contradiction, the refs are trivial, unreliable and not independent. Nothing here even gets close to WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an awkward way of saying one-man band Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just as unnotable as Treephort. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shamelessly promotional from himself or a supporter, repeating info from a fansite and his own typical streaming entries. The article attempts to use the Austin Chronicle as a reliable source (ref #5) but all he got there was half a sentence about a charity single. The article's second paragraph says that he played with a bunch of notable acts, but those are cases of being on the same festival bill as them. No reliable coverage even in local sources after 20 years of hopping around local scenes on others' coattails. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Andollo[edit]

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

not my field really, but there does not seem to be a Reliable source DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. lack of references.Timberlack (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - I've added a 2001 CNN profile (which includes the commentary about how she "can free dive more than 100 meters on one breath. This exceeds the depth most World War II submarines could descend before imploding"), an in-depth 2012 profile from a Cuban news source, a brief 2021 McClatchy reference, and in my general review of other sources, it appears that Andollo is cited as the record that other divers are trying to beat. This article would benefit from revision and additional sources, but notability appears to be established, at minimum per WP:ANYBIO due to setting world records (a well-known and significant award or honor) and it appears likely that additional sources exist. Beccaynr (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr and WP:ANYBIO. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not even one reliable source the nominator says. Click the Wikipedia reference search at the top of the AFD. http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0104/29/wr.04.html http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/04/nr.00.html her first absolute world record. Having surpassed not only the women's record but also the men's previous best of 73 meters. So she's a world record holder. Also Andollo, who's a national hero in her home country. Honestly now, notable achievement, she notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 00:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC No compliance with WP:Before. World record setter! Repeatedly. Not the article and sourcing it was when deletion was proposed. In particular, her name, fame and record setting accomplishments were a constant and a legend in the Apnea diving community literature. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm going to be bold here and say that the consensus when the weight of arguments is assessed is to delete. AfD isn't a vote and the keep votes are essentially a plea that there must be sources, yet none indicating gng have been presented. Fenix down (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frode Fredriksen[edit]

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

This article passes WP:NFOOTY in its current dysfunctional form because he played two games (one as late sub) in the 2001 Tippeligaen, which we have arbitrarily defined as a 'fully professional league' (in reality it was nothing of the sort). The rest of the guy's appearances were in the lower divisions, even further away from full-time professional football. Accordingly there is a dearth of sustained, non-routine coverage in reliable sources which would pass WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 8 February 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. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We really should go to requiring people to have multiple games played in a fully professional league before we even consider that they might be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously, there are enough decent hits in google for the guy, I can't understand the language hits know, the article has currently seven citations, although could be better written. He has won the 1. divisjon (OBOS-LIGAEN) 2001,[3] and there must be more offline sources. I am getting fed-up with these nominations that clearly lack WP:BEFORE!. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being part of squad which won a second tier, semi-professional league 20 years ago doesn't make you inherently notable. In fact if that's the best source you found, it's obvious the guy fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Govvy. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about footballer who played two matches in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails GNG (making the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL invalid). I can only find online archived Norwegian-language coverage that is trivial such as match reports. Jogurney (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also searched the Norwegian newspaper archives but could not find any examples of WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Combinatorial hierarchy[edit]

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

Not notable. The article is 100% based on primary sources. No outside reception visible, this is Noyes and a handful of coauthors doing some numerology (called as such here - and this is the only outside mention I see). Bit-string physics seems to mean the same thing, so that redirect is part of the deletion here as well. mfb (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are three brief third-party reviews of works in this line at MR 0563221 and MR1888233 (subscription access needed) and at Zbl 1033.81008 (open). As MathSciNet and zbMATH reviews are routine for many areas of mathematics, I don't think they count towards notability, but if this somehow ends up being kept they could be used as sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is deep WP:FRINGE. Noyes self-published papers about it on his own journal, the "Journal of the Western Regional Chapter of the Alternative Natural Philosophy Association"[4]. They are self-admittedly outside the mainstream, which is not Wikipedia's thing. The fascinating story about it is told here [5]. Also note that the main reference [6] is published in the notoriously cranky Int. J. Theor. Phys. In summary: the theory itself is not published in any reliable source, there is a reliable source describing it as fringe (found by the nominator), and the authors themselves describe it as fringe. Kill it with fire. Tercer (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the physics aspect of it is fringe or at best numerology; the mathematical side appears to be just standard Boolean algebra buried under a pile of obscurantist redefinitions. The question is whether it is notable as fringe and whether we have the reliable sources that identify it as such and clarify its connection to standard mathematics, allowing us to write a properly WP:NPOV article according to the consensus of mainstream scholarship. It appears that we do not have those sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the grounds that numerology is notable, and so is this more esoteric branch. Speculations that end in being debunked deserve a space here, if only to serve as a space for refutation. I suggest that all that is needed is some referenced debunking to the page. User:ElGazWellwood's thoughts at Talk:Combinatorial hierarchy also suggest support for maintaining. The page has about 14 links in article space, so is deemed relevant to several other pages, and also serves as a redirect destination for Bit-string physics (following a merge I completed some time ago - on the grounds that it was better to have one page on such a topic rather than two). I note that the bibliography contains a peer-review paper (Int. J. Theor. Phys.) and there are books as referenced sources; overall, this seem to meet WP:N. Klbrain (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't work like this, you need multiple independent sources about combinatorial hierarchy to stablish its notability, it is not inherited from numerology. Also, they need to be outside of Wikipedia, wikilinks don't count (and I removed some of them). Right now the only independent source we have is saying that combinatorial hierarchy is bunk. If you can find more sources saying that it is bunk, then sure, it is notable bunk and should have an article in Wikipedia. Otherwise, it's out. Tercer (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, incoming links from other Wikipedia pages don't count for notability, since anybody can add them, and the pages those links are coming from might even be deletion candidates themselves. This wouldn't be the first time that we've seen a walled garden of articles leaning on each other for spurious respectability. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the above, the only thing needed to convince editors that notability is met is to list independent sources about the topic. I agree that numerology is notable so that other article is unlikely to be deleted. —Paleo Neonate – 03:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Numerology, and not influential or historically significant numerology at that. XOR'easter (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems not notable even as WP:FRINGE. Ebony Jackson (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge in Frederick Parker-Rhodes. The author seems more notable than combinatorial hierarchy and there's already a little coverage at the BLP article. If any important detail is missing there it could be merged, but a separate article is unnecessary and the topic by itself does not meet WP:GNG. —Paleo Neonate – 02:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the article as it stands doesn't have much useful content, the general area does seem to have received sympathetic attention from what appears to me to be non-weird work, e.g., it has substantial citations in Garcia-Morales (2015) Quantum mechanics and the principle of least radix economy, Foundations of Physics, and in Kauffman (2004) Non-commutative worlds, New Journal of Physics. Tercer, what do you make of these refs? — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-commutative worlds only has a trivial mention, and is authored by a collaborator of Noyes. Quantum mechanics and the principle of least radix economy does have a substantial coverage of the combinatorial hierarchy, but I wouldn't called it "non-weird work", it's quite crazy stuff. Also, it has only ever been cited by its author. Tercer (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, wow, yeah, "least radix economy" is hella weird. Claiming that the laws of physics arise because the universe is a computer that dynamically adjusts the base it calculates in is ... well it's not mainstream, that's for sure. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)t[reply]

Delete The 2018 CODATA recommended value for the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant is 137.035999084(21), more than 1.7×10⁶ standard deviations from the vaue predicted by this theory. Theory disproven. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Dollmayer (model)[edit]

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

Non-notable, only coverage, and even that is very limited, has to do with the sexual abuse charges, so WP:BIO1E would apply. But not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Might be an attempt at promotion, as the inclusion of the agencies he is currently with. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not affiliated with the subject of the article in any way. Being highly interested in fashion, I was curious as to why a model in many memorable advertisement campaigns didn't have a Wikipedia page and decided to make one addressing the topic. Please list the rules where it states it is against policy to provide a said person's agency page. That's like suggesting that providing links to a famous figure's personal website is forbidden, which it is not, as seen in Marcus Schenkenberg and countless other Wikipedia pages. I cited the agencies I could find under Dollmayer's listing to prove the validity of identity and to prove the provided article information correct since the article lists which known agencies he appears to be with (as do all model Wikipedia pages). I assure you I am not attempting to abuse any concrete policies Wikipedia has. Please list exactly what's wrong with the citations, or which ones you would prefer to be removed if they don't meet the standard. I am fully willing to comply and make the changes necessary so that the article will be deemed acceptable. Due to your complaint, I have provided further citations but this still doesn't appear to be sufficient for you. Please state exactly what can be done so the article can be redeemed. Also please refer to my talk response in the article (as requested) for my explanations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvdoglover (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO by a wide margin. None of the sources are any good, nor can I find any. Some of them are plainly not independent, one is a Getty image, and the rest are not about him specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Timberlack (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the sources in the article are trivial mentions or advertising, and I could find nothing better. To answer Kvdoglover's question about what the article needs in order to be kept, WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I don't see that any of the sources present in the article meet all four criteria, nor did I find any such sources by searching. Wham2001 (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it does not meet the criteria, then please delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvdoglover (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 H2g2#History. Daniel (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Village[edit]

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

Not notable, I couldn't see something notable about it on internet. Note to admins: please consider deleting redirects if the result is "Delete". Ahmetlii (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with H2g2#History whatever is verifiable as it would help beef up the more notable target article. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 23:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Howard Gibson[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cabayi (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sacred Music Course[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable course. All the links on the page are dead and I could not turn up any new sources through searching. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely not notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to do anything specific, but I get the impression that merging this content to some appropiate article about Nortel or World War I or commutators would be accepted by most. Sandstein 20:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Commutator[edit]

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

Declined prod. Rationale was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) (see subsection for products) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." User:DGG asked for additional BEFORE, which I did again, but I am not seeing anything about this device from Northern Electric. There are few passing mentionof a 'portable commutator slotter' (Slotting Tool?) as well as 'portable commutator grinder'. Our totally unreferenced article claims this was a WWI-era tool but I couldn't find any discussion of it (military or otherwise). Finding a single source to confirm this is not a hoax would be a good start. The only thing we have is the fair use (disputable...) picture that claims the photo of this device is included in a "Computer Desktop Encyclopedia". Even if this is true (I couldn't get access to any digitized version of this reference work), it is plausible it doesn't have an entry for this device and the picture is used to illustrate something else. But maybe some with better research could rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have at least identified the object in the picture,: A commutator is basically mechanical switch for electric currents, usually rotary, and mainly used in old-fashioned DC electric motors to reverse the current so the motor continues to spin. See our article Commutator (electric). They have other uses, not discussed in that afrticle, as electrical switches, in particular for early battery operator telephones, to provide for connecting the master instrument to various telephone stations. A good reference for this is a Western Electric catalog from [7], undated, but I think around 1900-1819. A very common use for potanble electric switching apparatus in military field use, and I found a direct reference from the Canadian wquivalent of Western Electric [8] 'Early Years 1900 - Northern Electric manufactures ... the portable commutator, a one-wire telegraphic switchboard for military field service in World War 1. I know where to go from here, which is United States Army Field Manuals for WWI, but I can't do that much work right now. (I should mention that I am mainly familiar with US manuals for the WWII period, widely available in paper and probably now on line, covering all sorts of military ad general practical specialties. A wonderful PD resource.. Other countries presumably have similar. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, "a one-wire telegraphic switchboard for military field service". Good start - this would at least define this more meaningfully. Though I don't think the coverage in manuals/catalogs is enough to satisfy GNG. But maybe we can dig out something more? If not, perhaps a section about military portable commutators in the linked Commutator (electric) could be created, but I'll note right now the article is a sub-stub with next to zero meaningful content (so there's nothing to merge). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously not a hoax as it appears in histories of Nortel such as this. Our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Commutator (electric) has a section for different types. Seems like a natural place for adding a small blurb about a portable version if nothing else comes up. Maybe ya'll should just merge it and start on the Mercury swivel commutator which is totally unsourced and... freaky? What is that even, a Frankenstein kind of deal? Estheim (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are not the same thing. This article seems to describe a communications device, rather than a motor part. I've added a reference. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh durr, you right. Maybe Electrical telegraph, if not a WL in the WWI section (which isn't terribly robust). Estheim (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Nortel as the content is replicated there. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Richebächer[edit]

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

Biography with no claim made for notability, and no reliable sources cited. LK (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Halten" – Looks like this an article refimprove problem, and the cure is not deletion. A click on the Google Scholar button above came up with lots (137) of citations to and by Richebächer. The other ref-help links (above) produced results that look good to my untrained, non-economist eye. (For example, NYT says he was the "former chief economist of West Germany's Dresdner Bank".) – S. Rich (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Right now the article has a single citation to a website that looks like a memorial, which renders it original research. I can't find any "newspaper" articles online. I found ten "news" articles online, few of which are about the subject, and all but two are blogs. Please make an effort to prove he passes WP:PROF. Tagging DGG. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Keep. Not a professor, but a notable economist with sufficient publications. It's difficult to judge the significance of specialized s in German, but his works are each in about 50 of the uS major academic libraries. There is no easy way to see how widespread the influence is in Europe, and especially no w eeasy way in the US to look for German reviews of books like these. The only reason I hesitate is that the deWP does not have an article on him, and it's the sort of topic they're very good with. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable economist, there have been numerous articles about him in the financial press. --Devoke water 01:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Zinoviev (author)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Most notable activity might be Parovoz IS? This article also seems to be autobiographical. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Far from my area but the Google Scholar citation profile looks ok-ish; 168,132,114,71,64, although all are multiauthor and one has ten authors. The top citations are for old papers 1993–2001, when citation wasn't as heavy as it is now. If this had been started independently I'd be leaning keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The h-index of 16 strikes me as fairly low for CS, given the area, and the top cites aren't that high either. I am not seeing here enough to pass WP:PROF. I am not sure if there is significant coverage of him in relation to Parovoz IS but even if yes, at the most it seems to be a WP:BIO1E situation, and he is already mentioned in the Parovoz IS article. Plus this does look like a WP:AUTO case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only works with three-digit citations in his Google Scholar profile are from his postdoctoral research in a physics lab, there are only three of them, and one is a review paper that shouldn't count so much towards academic notability. In his main line of research in computer science, a high-citation area, there is no visible impact. So I don't think he passes WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounted the merge argument as the target page has been deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Sutin[edit]

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is not inherited from the acquired company (Squad) of which he is a co-founder. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Squad (app). --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Co founded a non notable startup that fails WP:NCORP & being discussed at AfD. The person isn't known for anything else nor has any online (as per my search) significant coverage in trustworthy sources. Future coverages would likely be just mentions as his startup is now acquired by Twitter. Dial911 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not established nor inherited. MER-C 20:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A before search showed nothing near notability. Luciapop (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hydro-Québec. Clear consensus for merge, even factoring in the changes to the article. Daniel (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Electric Circuit[edit]

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

Article, relying entirely on primary source content self-published by the parent corporation rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media, about a network of electric vehicle charging posts. As always, every company (or subsidiary of a company) is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists: the basis for an article about this would not be the company's own web presence metaverifying its own existence, but media paying independent attention to it by doing journalism about it to get it over WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hydro-Québec, the parent company/operator as a mention-worthy subsidary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hydro-Québec as this doesn't merit its own page. InsuranceLovers(talk) 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Merge as discussed. It should be more notable, but it isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is noteworthy, the French language version has plenty of content with the media sources. I will make time to bring this over. Bdewater (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new sources added by Bdewater do demonstrate it has independent coverage in the media. It's a common problem here, to think notable articles are not because the sources are not available in English. Tercer (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How do we feel about the improved version? Is it enough to call it Heymann'd?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the improvement. It no longer relies on primary source content as the original argument argued.--User:Namiba 14:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hydro-Québec. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the organization* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as they rely on PR/Announcements, quotations/interviews with company personnel and/or information provided by the organization or their partners. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only properly sourced content into Hydro-Québec per HighKing above. Doesn't meet guidelines for a stand alone article, but there is a good target for a merge, both the content and the target article will be improved by a merge. // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It pains me slightly to close this as NC as it is a relatively-unsourced BLP, and on this basis, it probably needs improving fairly speedily to avoid a renomination in the coming months. Daniel (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eylem Şenkal[edit]

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

No indication of notability and no independent coverage. Keivan.f^Talk 21:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a few sources: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. According to the article (which needs to be updated), she played in Fenerbahçe (also confirmed by the sources). The question is, did she play in the main team in Fenerbahçe in Turkish Women's Volleyball League or in a lower league? Looking at WP:NSPORT, there is no criteria for Volleyball players, so we have to make up our own. Also with the amount of sources she might meet WP:ENT. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 07:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that she was in a lower league, otherwise there would have been much more coverage of her work and activities. Her so-called career as a model is also not enough to make her prominent, because she is not a well-known figure in the Turkish fashion industry. I'll look forward to what other users have to say about her Volleyball career though; maybe she has had some achievements but I doubt it. Keivan.f^Talk 22:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The sources in the article are not IS RS with SIGCOV, but the sources Styyx found are interesting. I don't believe individually they amount to SIGCOV, but WP:BASIC allows, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I think this makes it squeek past BASIC. I do not believe NSPORT (or any other SNG) would be any help here. The article is in a very poor state. // Timothy :: talk 03:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verity and the Shades[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No coverage, no plays, no fans. scope_creep^Talk 18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They have a friendly interview in a regional blog ([15]), and the occasional gig announcement ([16]). Otherwise they can only be found at the typical social media and streming sites, and even those are rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doomsdayer. All I have found is the Wiki article, myspace, youtube (and even then, only one youtube video is about the band), and the two sites Doomsdayer already listed. Not notable. COI also applies, as the majority of the user's edits revolve around this article and an article about their album (Journey (Verity album)). I think that should be deleted as well. He also edited other articles, but they are rare and as I have seen, all he did was including the "Journey" album in them. So, I correct myself: all of his edits revolve around the band and their (most likely) sole album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to GD100 for noticing the album article; I did not because it is not linked to the band article. I have nominated the album for deletion, largely because of the same problems faced by the band. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey (Verity album). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. This is almost a WP:ONEEVENT situation: she attracted some attention in her native South Africa for crowdfunding and selling her debut album online, which was a novel idea in the country at the time, and there is a 10-minute feature on a news programme about it. But there has been nothing since – the album only sold 2000 copies worldwide, and although she started recording a follow-up, it seems that it never materialised. She now makes her living as a motivational speaker, and appears to have left the music industry behind. So her notability rests on being the first South African to crowdfund an album. Richard3120 (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lennie Varvarides[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CREATIVE. Not a playwright, She is casting director, and producer. Minor coverage via charity. scope_creep^Talk 18:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 16th arrondissement of Paris#Education. Daniel (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsworth International School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Advertising. his article was deprodded with the edit summary "deprod, secondary school". But current consensus holds that there is no inherent notability for secondary schools; they must instead pass the GNG. This school does not. The Banner talk 18:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 16th arrondissement of Paris#Education. This rather promotional article offers no independent sources, and my searching doesn't find anything adequate for notability purposes. Redirects are cheap, so redirection to the municipality's article, which mentions it, won't hurt. This case is quite similar to this AfD. (I'm glad that the nominator has found some of my verbiage from that AfD useful.) The school isn't notable, but we might as well redirect it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a promotional piece of content. No reference to justify WP:NSCHOOL. Timberlack (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did look at the article and their website and found half the text was added by one single topic editor and the edits surrounding it were by a user that looks as if it is a school account. The school is tiny. The bit on exam boards looks like a cut and paste, and is promotional. Remove that and there is nothing left to merge. Other sections of WP:WPSCH/AG not evident. ClemRutter (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if we are not going to hold schools to our normal corporation notability guidelines, or even minimum understanding of GNG, we still need a source (lacking here) other than the institutions own website (which seems to be what was used to create this article). Wikipedia is supposed to be built on secondary sources, not primary ones, which means we can not just parrot an organizations own website in creating articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons everyone else have already given. I.e. this a promotional article about a school that lacks any independent sources discussing it. Aside from news articles about one of the schools founders apparently, but they are not enough to justify keeping the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Constructors[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No fans, no coverage, no plays. scope_creep^Talk 17:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find a single RS. DanCherek (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adding to above, it seems to be a vanity page created by a one-time SPA edit with a sole reference being the band's own webpage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ShelbyMarion. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-hegemonic globalization[edit]

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

The concept has no notability. It's a concept created by one scholar and tied exclusively to that scholar's work. I don't see why the concept can't be incorporated into Counterhegemony, Global justice movement and other related concepts. It's strange to refer to something as a "social movement" when the only mentions of it are in the works by one person. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2013-09 ↻ restored, 2013-09 ✗ G6

Delete. Not seeing significant, in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 01:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ugh, political articles are always a problem because partisanship often leads editors to toss policy out the window. The deletion arguments are essentially ESSAY, POV & POVFORK. I’m also concerned by the argument that this contains material that wouldn’t be suitable for the bio - so is this a coat rack or a disguised opportunity for hosting blp vios? Not sure but it means we need to be cautious in the outcome.

On the keep side, the argument is that its notable and has sources and some ridiculous comparison with other articles which is invalid per wax.

This therefore comes down to an issue of notability and since its an article about bihar under lalu prasad yadev have the sources been demonstrated to discuss that intersection in a nonpolemic and scholarly way so that we can create a neutral and balanced article? My read of the keep arguments is that this argument has not been made and that the sources have been asserted and not demonstrated. Given the concerns about blp and pov expressed in the delete argument we need to be very clear that polemic or partisan sources wouldn’t be a suitable fit for a neutral article but that’s a question for another day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav[edit]

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

Delete --This is not an article it is an Essay and should be deleted as per WP:NOTESSAY. If articles which are mostly an Essay are allowed then others will create articles like Gujarat under Narendra Modi, West Bengal under Mamta Banerjee, Orissa under Biju Patanaik, United States of America under Donald Trump in order to push their Point of View and opinion. Such essays are usually created either to glorify or castigate the person. Heybata (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Heybata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Russia under Vladimir Putin and Presidency of Donald Trump and its not a valid ground to delete an article having a lot of reliable sources.No personal opinion are mentioned, everything is from high quality sources, read the policy carefully, u mentioned, its backed by large number of sources and not a original publication. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is itself a big issue in this case as the nominator is a WP:SPA, mostly having any issue with the subject. The route of Afd was chosen though the cleanup might have been a good idea with the article having a lot of reliable book sources from high quality publishers and authors in the topic area. I can see many comments are just posted by people who haven't edited in this topic area in the past nor do procedural grounds indicate the need to delete such article. Meanwhile some of the initial comment also indicates WP:COI issue of the voters in this Afd. The attempt of one of the voter in the original article of Lalu Prasad Yadav to keep criminal conviction in the lead [17] seemed POV violation as a whole section talks about multiple criminal conviction of the subject. I want to clarify, I know about WP:uncensored. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A WP:CFORK like this could be appropriate if the information does not fit in the article about Lalu Prasad Yadav. However, I find the current article a bit confusing. First of all, the WP:LEAD does not seem to give a summary of the article as the lead is supposed to give, but instead provides background. A fork also does not need to contain a short biography of the person of which it is a fork (Lalu Prasad Yadav). That is no reason for deletion though. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yupp, the article discusses about transformation of Bihari society in his tenure, including the changes in contemporary politics. You can call it partly political and partly a historical article. Actually, it also mention the background of politics of 1990 Bihar, which paved the way for RJD coming into power, the lead indicate that particular thing only. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article could be improved (e.g. the lead should be the Background section and a new lead is needed), but that's no reason for deletion. There are 79 sources used; most of them look decent, and the topic seems notable enough. I suggest that the nominator might better address their perceived complaint of bias by finding reliable sources that give the other point of view, and use them to improve the article. --RexxS (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made the changes u suggested. ThanksHeba Aisha (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a good WP:CFORK since it mainly offers a perspective about his rule than rely on facts. Equally . Comparing the subject with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is also far from making any sense because these individuals reigned has presidents of their nations. Lalu Yadav was just a chief minister. Once WP:UNDUE sections like "Background", "On Yadavisation", "Colonial roots of underdevelopment in Bihar" and others have been removed then the article will become small already. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- It depends upon WP:Notability of issue, and here you can find 100 of books about governance during his period. I can see wikipedia going to miss a historical article if it gets deleted as articles related to Bihar are already in poor state with non verifiable sources. All the old politics related article were written by using sources that are not accessible and a lot of information was veiled. This is the first time I tried to give visible and verifiable source for every point of the article.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see sections like personality cult in Russia under Vladimir Putin, these are the things mentioned many a times in the news articles and the sources, similar is the case of Yadavisation[18][19] , which has gain notability in political circle of Bihar, a simple google search will tell you that its not WP:UNDUE.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should I assume WP:SILENCE ?Heba Aisha (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this subject holds enough currency to require a stand alone article. I also don't see similar articles for every chief minister/state combination. Some of the sources don't even mention Lalu Prasad Yadav so the article also violates WP:OR. Important content already exists on Lalu Prasad Yadav. Any important content in the article should be shifted to under Bihar article.Santosh L (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better to keep an article seperate if enough information can be included in it and it becomes too big to be included in any article. This topic needs seperate mentioning considering the notability and reliable sources present on the topic. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources which donot mention him, must mention the background of his political ascedency, afterall everything is accessible, anyone can see clearly, its nothing like an WP:OR.I would like to mention wat admin said above:There are 79 sources used; most of them look decent, and the topic seems notable enough Heba Aisha (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should I assume WP:SILENCE?Heba Aisha (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE. You can easily find more than 80 sources for expanding a subject like this, but the main article Lalu Prasad Yadav should be enough for all relevant content. That article is only 66k bytes, and there will be no issue with adding roughly 10k bytes more there. --RaviC (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As per administrator Miniapolis, the article couldn't be merge being too long and the content can't be included in Lalu Prasad Yadav article being not suitable for biography. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article Lalu Prasad Yadav doesn't seem long enough that it needs to have a separate article focusing solely on his political career. Whereas if we look at articles like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, those articles are huge and as leaders of a country, definitely can be able to spin off their own pages on their political careers. Whereas I feel much of this article contains excellent and detailed information that can easily be transplanted to Lalu Prasad Yadav, where the additional content would be a good addition to beef up the page, because currently, Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav is longer than Lalu Prasad Yadav itself. Also the information can be put on History of Bihar which also could use some more additions.Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I am agreed to put some content like colonial roots of underdevelopment in History of Bihar.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic with plenty of sources, and potential merge targets are long enough already. AfD is not cleanup. Miniapolis 15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Its not possible to merge and many fine sources are used. The nominator seems to be a novice who seems to have some dispute over the content, but it is not a sound criteria for delition. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not there. Uses selective sources to support his views. Shows Laluji and Bihar badly. This person is anti-bihari. Delete and block him. Pintu the dude (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked for meatpuppetry.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC) — Pintu the dude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Some of the best authors in the area has been used here including Christophe Jaffrelot and Jeffery wistoe. The Afd is not a route to clean an article. It is open to add up what others know in seperate section without delition of sourced content. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Yoonadue and WP:NOPAGE. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:NOPAGE properly and relevant examples like Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign clearly says the opposite what's kept here.Heba Aisha (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously a notable topic. Being essay-like is not grounds for deletion. If it is essay-like, improve it. That seems to be a cosmetic objection anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:CFORK. Comparing him with Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump as an argument for keeping doesn't hold water -- he's nowhere as consequential as the other two. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 1990'sguy, please see the number of books written above his rule. The topic is highly notable as a simple search on google books will take you to plenty of materials from publishers like Routledge and Penguin uk also the oxford university press. Being a national leader or president of a big nation shouldn't be the criteria to decide WP:Notability. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable topic since a large part of media coverage during Yadav's tenure as the chief minister (or his wife's) was concerned about his "rule" of the state and was largely critical about it. Any WP:POV in the article can be ironed out however. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like a WP:POVFORK as described above, particularly by Santoshsatvik. Most of the section about Bihar_under_Lalu_Prasad_Yadav#Assessment has barely anything to do with the subject. Lalu Prasad Yadav is nowhere in the List of longest-serving Indian chief ministers. None of those 40 longest serving chief ministers of India have their own "xxx(state) under xxxx (CM name)". There is no need to develop a new standard for this subject as pointed out by the nominator. Tessaracter (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tessaracter, the Afd is not about cleanup. If anyone think that there are pov issue in the article, the opposite view along with source could be presented. Meanwhile, I would suggest you to go through the sources as the sources say what is there in the article. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanwhile, I would also urge you to do necessary edits if you feel the word " Assessment " is problematic there.PS: Various high quality sources are provided along with the preview and it is upto other editors to iron out any pov "if they think it is there ", though I have tried to remain totally neutral. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, you're not convincing other editors of your POV by bludgeoning the discussion. Let the community have its say, and I hope you don't have an undisclosed conflict of interest with this article. Miniapolis 14:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Miniapolis, sure I dont have any COI, I was just saying it is open to be edited if one thinks so.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that would lead me to conclude that this has been treated by sources as an independent topic. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it certainly has issues, I do not buy the argument that there's a lack of precedent—subnational entities and their leaders are perfectly valid targets for articles, see e.g. Governorship of Phil Murphy or Governorship of Rick Perry. (And Bihar dwarfs both Texas and New Jersey). There may be a lack of precedent for India but I would argue that is a reflection of Wikipedia's under-coverage of non-Western countries more than anything else. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Salaman[edit]

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

A number of vague waves at notability: grandson of founder of Salomon Brothers friend of Churchill, among the last Englishman to be imprisoned in the Tower. However no evidence found that he meets WP:NSOLDIER or any other notability guidelines. StarM 16:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS failing WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can find no evidence that he was promoted to air commodore as the article claims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a friend of a very notable person does not make one notable, and that is about all the article has going for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete via G7 shortly after the discussion began. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CiCi Bellis career statistics[edit]

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

Way too detailed list of statistics for a run-of-the-mill professional player: never reached the top 100 (singles or doubles), never won a WTA tournament, has no really remarkable statistics which have been the subject of significant attention. Fram (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - depending on the outcome of this discussion, it may be worth discussing whether Rebecca Peterson career statistics and Jessica Pegula career statistics and others may warrant a stand-alone article as well. Has there ever been a main discussion at NSPORTS or elsewhere as to what players qualify for such articles? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete via G7 shortly after the discussion began. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Rogers career statistics[edit]

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

Comparable to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dustin Brown career statistics: a good but not exceptional player (career high ranking #48, never won a WTA tournament) whose statistics can be compiled, but where these statistics haven't been the subject of separate significant attention, as they aren't recordbreaking or remarkable. The main statistics belong in her article, a separate detailed article is overkill. Fram (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Shelby Rogers, or keep We shouldn’t compare it to other articles, but to look to the content of this page. If the information on this page can be found in secondary sources, the content is notable. Almost all content can be found in news articles, so the content is notable. So the content should be kept on the main page of Shelby Rogers. If the page will become to long, a seperate article like this one is needed. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Science (company)[edit]

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

Article about a company that produces educational materials. The main claim to significance is that its materials are used in most US elementary schools, but I can only find this claim on their own website. Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If there was a reference to the Elementary School curriculum in the 50 states, this article could be saved. As it is, everything stands alone sans notability. Delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like a pretty run of the company that clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG due to a lack of notability. Plus, there's obvious COI editing issues. So, I think deleting the article is the best thing to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and is covered in a variety of reliable sources like Tech Crunch, University of Michigan, and Venture Beat.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is not the appropriate guideline for companies/organizations - NCORP is appropriate and is stricter than GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted - G7. (by an admin) (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Sergio Ramos[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDIARY - this is simply not encyclopedic content, and is in fact directly referred to in the later: "Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough..." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: there's no real difference, I think, as far as WP policy is concerned, between this and the recently deleted List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Vernon Philander... This kind of stats-trivia page is, well, trivial and unencyclopedic. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not too long ago there was (if I recall correctly) a discussion at WT:FOOTBALL about these kind of articles, and I believe the outcome was rough consensus that these type of articles can be notable if a player has hit a significant milestone of goals (e.g. 50) and/or they are the country's record holder and/or GNG is met. None of these 'passes' apply here as far as I can see. Giant Snowman 16:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons GS said. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, but I just want to check: are we saying this list should not be merged back to the Sergio Ramos main article? – PeeJay 16:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The table already exists at Sergio Ramos#International goals, so I don't see there's anything to merge. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - But should it be there at all? Is there any need to list a player's international goals in their article if they haven't met certain criteria? – PeeJay 17:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd put into question the whole concept of listing a player's international goals, no matter what the criteria for listing them would be; because of the explicit wording of WP:NOTDIARY; but that's a discussion better had at a more centralised place than a single AfD. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmmm, I think for notable record holders, such as any nation's record goalscorer or those who meet a certain threshold, the lists are probably fine, but what gets me is when I see a table for a random centre-back who played a couple of internationals listing their one and only goal. – Pee Jay 07:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless duplicate of the table already on the article. This clearly doesn't meet the criteria set out. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as decided by editors here. ChapzK (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per above comments duplicate content etc. Govvy (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Ramos is not a topscorer for his country, nor has he scored a significant amount of goals to make splitting relevant per size. Regarding the general question, @RandomCanadian: you can see the recent discussion at WT:FOOTY at this link. --SuperJew (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a lot of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS based on arbitrary criteria. Thanks for the link, though, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dr Salvus (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amanda Johnstone[edit]

The result of this discussion was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stansted Transit[edit]

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

No significant coverage of this defunct company in multiple reliable sources (that are not local or of limited interest) - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjaam (1987 film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. PROD removed because " this was clearly a major production", but no evidence was produced to verify that claim. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that this is a notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Buses[edit]

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

No significant coverage of this defunct company in multiple reliable sources (that are not local or of limited interest) - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Erik Midtskogen[edit]

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

Previously deleted via PROD for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This still looks to be a concern as the Faroese league and the second tiers of Norway (and below) are not considered to be fully professional leagues. The best sources that I could find were this, this and this paywalled piece. The paywalled one is probably the only one that even comes close to discussing this player in depth but, putting what I can through a translator, barely extends beyond being a transfer rumour piece, essentially. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's playing for a more relevant club. The article just need to be expanded a little. --Davidsousa1 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as inclined to agree with Sir Sputnik - this player does not have sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Uchenna Iwuno[edit]

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

Paid for article on a non notable “businessman” who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:ANYBIO & generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus fails to satisfy WP:GNG also. A before search confirms that Celestina007 (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable in every way. —Kbabej (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not at all close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Smartyllama (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Walusimbi[edit]

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

Uganda Premier league isn't a a fully professional league. Therefore, he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets requirements per WP:BASIC.--User:Namiba 14:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he might fail WP:NFOOTBALL but I think there is enough in-depth coverage about this person to satisfy WP:GNG. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fails WP:NFOOTBALL but passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corso helicopter crash[edit]

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

Not notable civil aviation accident. Nobody WP notable on board. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cerberon-900 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- This article has enough details and sources, so I do not understand why it should be deleted.

- User: WilliamJE I see that your only purpose on Wikipedia is to delete articles.

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and not here to document every fatal crash in the world. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very common sort of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL light aircraft accident, one of many thousands each year. No notable people involved, fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS for an event. No more notable than the average fatal car accident. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable incident. This isn't a commercial, nor with anyone notable on-board, or injured on the ground. ThatIPEditor (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shari McEwan[edit]

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

BLP with single source to a pageant. Her name in a Google News search pulls up 2 namedrops on Stabroek News of Guyana, but nothing else (which is sad since she didn't even represent Guyana.) And so, so many mirrors. And the article only has her height and hobbies. Sad! Estheim (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daffodil international college[edit]

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

Lack of WP:RS and fails WP:NSCHOOL. Written in a tone that serves WP:PROMOTION of the subject here. — Amkgp 💬 11:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 11:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 11:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Pipsally (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed, non-notable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McDonald (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for muscians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. KidAd ⑊ SPEAK 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Records[edit]

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

PRODed for failing WP:NCORP in 2010 and dePRODed with comment deprodding record label of several notable artists which, in my view, does not address the concern of failing NCORP which takes precedence over any inherited notability from the notable artists that it may or may not have had on its roster at some point. From my research, I can't see that their connection with Grant Campbell or OvO is significant enough to even warrant a merge and, besides, there is no useful content to even merge anyway.

As far as I can tell, this is a very small record label based in Middlesbrough that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; I have not found multiple, independent, reliable sources discussing this company directly and in significant detail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My WP:BEFORE search has only yielded self-published sources such as the company's own Twitter, some Resident Advisor promo, their Facebook and their Soundcloud. The only sources that provide more than a passing mention of the company are this review and this EP description. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That this article has existed for over 13 years with no source other than the subjects own website is a negative mark against Wikipedia. Although having reviewed several articles on record labels, it almost seeems the majority of such articles lack any sources other than the record labels' own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cabayi (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korea origin theory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I see this article unintentionally today, and notice that this article is full of distortion on Korea and missing link. For instance, This article describe that Korean people pretend to origin of airplane, named after Bicha (비차). Although it is just unofficial history, this article distort as if all Korean (or government) claim this myth as history. Also, there is a lot of offensive examples about "fake Korean origin" with missing or partial reference. It is too malicious to need to deletion. Reiro (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This article is an inevitable wreck that attempts to piece controversy together in a cluster of nationalist trolls linking unrelated historical debates together. However, I do not think it is more desirable to maintain the page toward that coincidence of this article will be re-written by someone who is not personally involved in the argument. Any new version should be deleted before being inserted into the main space. TruthAndSalt (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who else is having flashbacks to the AREX line out of Incheon with TV screens blasting "DOKTO NOT JAPAN" commercials? Just me? Indiscriminate list serving a controversial topic made with nationalist fervor. It doesn't even talk about the 'origin theory' itself; proponents, philosophy, why it started- those basic components for any such article. Estheim (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with other editors. Its just a list, doesn't even talk about the origin and a concept and as a thing that must have been developed by proponents, and opposed by critics. Doesn't meet the basic threshold of an encyclopedia article. --haha169 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and improve~~ Replace with a translation that synthesizes the Japanese and Chinese versions of the article. Per WP:ARTN and WP:NPOSSIBLE, a subject remains notable even if the article is poorly written and doesn't cite the right sources. While the English version of this article fails to cite the secondary sources that would be needed to justify a specific article on the Korea origin theory, as noted by TruthAndSalt, the Japanese version does. While the English version fails to provide any sort of historical context or explanation, as noted by Estheim and Haha169, the Japanese version does. Thus, per WP:ATD, this article must be improved rather than discarded. EDIT: I agree that this article also flunks POV guidelines, but that's also not a valid reason for deletion per WP:ATD. Jancarcu (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the Japanese article on the Korea origin theory itself, Jp-Wiki also has a very extensive list article on the Korea origin theory. Thus, at this point, the idea that the article is in principle unsalvageable is untenable per WP:ATD, since this points to an abundance of WP:RS to choose from. Jancarcu (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Zh-Wiki version appears to be less well sourced than the Jp-Wiki version.Jancarcu (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears that both sides of this deletion discussion have mostly consisted of people interested in Asian politics; it might be better to try to get input from the broader Wikipedia community, if everybody is fine with it so that it's not WP:FORUMSHOPPING Jancarcu (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This document contains no significant academic information, and seems like it is directed against the Koreans. Whoever wrote this document is trying to make groundless claims on Korean Nationalism, and the document is biased in all ways. I don't see any hopes of fixing this document because most, if not all theories of Korean origins are made up, or seriously exaggerated. It is also good to keep in mind that there is close to no document that describes similar occurrences in OTHER COUNTRIES. Such a document will only bring anti-Korean sentiment from exaggerated events. Takipoint123 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Jancuru's ideas on fixing the document. Barely any document in the English Wikipedia deals with origin theories of other countries. The Jp-Wiki document is also quite biased in fairness, it does not state that most Koreans are disinterested and does not believe most of these theories. Also, keeping this document will only result in inaccurate information from nationalist anti-Korean trolls; therefore any meaningful changes will return to the inaccurate state as it is right now.Takipoint123 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 Febuary 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Many of the sources seem unreliable, blogs, forum posts, clickbait 'news' sites etc. If these were removed, would the subject have enough RS to remain notable? Keeping in mind that disputes about the origin of things are common among many countries. - AMorozov ^〈talk〉 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that some entries have a shred of truth that are sometimes argued in serious academia, which may have been inflated by Korean nationalists, then used as evidence of widespread belief by Japanese/Chinese nationalists:

The concept of katakana and manyo'gana may have been inspired by annotations in earlier Korean texts
Some Japanese emperors may have partial Korean ancestry
Some Japanese cultural items may have Korean influence
The Hongshan culture and Liao river civilization may have included proto-Korean peoples

Things like that should be added to the articles of each item respectively, provided a good source is available. The question here is whether or not the exaggerations of a small number of Korean nationalists is notable enough for its own article. - AMorozov ^〈talk〉 22:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if there are sources covering either how Korean nationalists do this, or Chinese/Japanese publications inaccurately claim it, then that could also be the basis of a different type of article on the topic. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is an interesting fact. Someone says the Japanese imperial ancestor, Kammu, was from a Korean kingdom; The man said such thing is Akihito, the former Japanese emperor[20]. Surely, that sentence has been criticized, and I also think it is just his personal opinion. However, at least, it is ultimately true that he is not Korean nationalist.

And I am from South Korea, but I have never been heard that The Hongshan culture and Liao river civilization may have included proto-Korean peoples (well, it is used to just internet joking such as The Finno-Korean Hyperwar). But no major Korean officer or organization claimed that such things).

In short, this article is overrating some of fringe theories. --Reiro (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does need some work to bring it up to standards but i think it is salvageble 新世界へ (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is there is no point in this article. Even if it is fixed it does not bring any academic value to the Wikipedia community and only proof of anti-Korean sentiment. Now, if we pose the question: Are these sorts of events happen across the world? Yes, in fact, China, Japan, and even western countries are continually fighting over origins. However, none of these are on Wikipedia, because it is too controversial and hard to keep NPOV and quickly become biased and inaccurate. This article will pretty much be a trash can for whatever grudge people hold on Korea, and you can clearly tell from the serious problems in the article. Upon inspection of the recent edits of the person who made this document, you can clearly tell that they are against Korea. Takipoint123 (talk • contribs) 7:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete in absence of at least a couple reliable sources that discuss the entire question (and even then the entries would need extensive expurgation, from what I am seeing). Without works to provide an overview and back up the notion that this is a notable and sufficiently-covered concept, this is a big pile of WP:SYNTH. Looks like the jaWP version has that problem too - lots of scattered examples of widely varying quality, with no unifying framework. (Have a look at the examples on Historical negationism, which all appear to have received the required kind of coverage.) The current approach is not suitable for an encyclopedia, and at the very least we should not keep it in mainspace. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerien Rugby Federation[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 09:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No references nor claim of significance, qualifies for speedy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references provided to show that it is a notable rugby federation. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Case of WP:A7 CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seem like the process is slower than CSD, I have initiated CSD A7 to speedy it even though it's consider "duplicate request" as newer similar non-importance page by same user was already deleted. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 02:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cabayi (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 оны 1 сарын 20-ны өдрийн жагсаал[edit]

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

An article in Mongolian that has been listed for translation for over the two week grace period, article has not been edited by the author since 28 January. It appears to be about a protest outside a hospital, probably MILL but I can't verify anything as all the refs are also Mongolian JW 1961 Talk 09:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can’t this be speedied as not being in English? —Kbabej (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kbabej, Hi CSD A2 say articles not written in English that exist on another wikipedia, I can't establish for sure if this is on Mongolian Wikipedia under some other name (It's not there under this name) that's why it was tagged ((Not English)) and so following the fortnights grace period I thought AfD to be the best option JW 1961 Talk 19:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to speak on notability for sure given the language barrier, but currently serves no purpose on English-language wikipedia Dexxtrall (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is not in English. I don't think this even merits any sort of debate.--Catlemur (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Small September Affair[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing. PROD was removed because of "WP;BEFORE", but as I said...I found nothing of value. Tagged for notability in March 2020. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found one review in Turkish [[21]]. I don't read Turkinsh, so idk. Also it seems that the movie was nominated on three awards at Ankara International Film Festival and Salento International Film Festival. Even won award for Best Music in the former one [[22]]. It also was played on the Montreal Turkish Film Festival (who'd know that is a thing) and got some in passing mentioning in an article here [[23]] for that. Given the award, I think it may be able to pass WP:NFO: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." Thoughts? Kolma8 (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the review and coverage cited above. Also according to List of 2014 box office number-one films in Turkey under its Turkish name Bi Küçük Eylül Meselesi it was one of the top twenty box office films of its year, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Kolma8 and Atlantic306, if it was one of the top twenty box office films of its year, it will have more coverage. It is ALLPLOT OR, needs clean up. // Timothy :: talk 03:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above and [[24]]. Kolma8 (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Ahlawat[edit]

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

Non notable actor and film producer with a few minor roles and sourced to paid sources. A Google search doesn't show in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:BASIC. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he meets WP:BASIC. Nalbarian (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nalbarian, Could you please clarify how he passes WP:BASIC? Ref# 1 and 2 are paid articles while ref# 3 is a press release with disclaimer at the bottom. None of these are considered reliable and independent of the subject.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhakkima[edit]

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

All content, except for the long quote, is the duplicate of Kharijites. The title itself is in the scope of the Kharijite article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article discusses the terms Muhakkima and al-Haruriyya and their relationship to Kharijites and Ibadis. It's in part a sub-article of Kharijites, but its scope also covers the recent Ibadi attempts at terminological reinterpretation. Great work on Kharijites, by the way. I'm glad this important article finally got a much-needed makeover. Eperoton (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Eperoton. But Muhakkima and Haruriya are just other names of the Kharijites, as discussed with sources in the Kharijtie article. This articles discusses emergence of Kharijites, fight with Ali, their doctrines and in the end irrelevant Ibaiyya. All of these are present in the Kharijite article and Ibadiyya history, doctrines and relation with other Muslims are discussed properly. Having this article stay essentially means having two articles on the same subject.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The terms Muhakkima/Haruriya are derived from specific episodes in the early history of the Kharijite movement, and this is the basis for the Ibadi argument that they should be associated with the former but not the latter. Regardless of what one thinks of this argument, it appears in RSs and out there in the world. People search for a clarification of these terms, and the article provides quickly accessible definitions, rather than redirecting the terms to Kharijites, making the reader search for them in the body of text, and then wonder if they have other meanings. Aside from the Ibadi connection, Muhakkima is a sub-topic of Kharijites. One can consider rearranging some material for a cleaner sub-article relationship, but there's nothing wrong with this relationship in general. Eperoton (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Encycopedia of Islam considers the Muhakkima to be same as Kharijites, as do Wellhausen and Watt. And Ibadis considering them non-Kharijites has no bearing on this, academic historians do consider them Kahrijtie faction. See, for example Valerie Hoffman's Imagined communities that is cited in the Muhakkima as well as Kharijtie articles. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EI2 doesn't consider them to be the same. It says "These first dissenters took the name al-Haruriya or al-Muhakkima... which is often applied by extension to the later Khawaridj also". So, it distinguishes the proper sense of these terms as referring to an early stage of Kharijite movement, and its use by extension as referring to Kharijites in general. Other sources (e.g., this one) also use the term to refer to a specific stage of the Kharijite movement. Even if this wasn't the case, I think we could still have an article about the terms, for the reason I mentioned, but in this case, the terms are used interchangeably only by some sources. Eperoton (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That does not justify separate article. All that stuff is essentially duplication of the origins section of the Kharijite article and offers nothing new. EI2 doesn't have a separate article on Muhakkima and it refers the Kharijite article on Muhakkima entry. They have articles on Ibadis, Sufris, Azarika, Najda, etc but not on Muhakkima. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see a rationale for deletion here. The article is in part a sub-article of Kharijites, and in part contains other material specific to terminology. It's well sourced. It's not a copy. It may later be expanded with other material that's too specific to go into the parent article. Seems fine to me. Eperoton (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vote-wise things are quite close but the delete votes are adamant there aren't sources to satisfy gng and the keep votes do nothing to suggest otherwise. GNG is the most important guideline and there is nothing here to indicate any significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Leighfield[edit]

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

PROD contested with the wording: "meets NFOOTBALL by playing in the Scottish Championship prior to 2019". The Scottish second tier has never been 'fully professional' per clear consensus on the FPL talk page so this article fails NFOOTY and more importantly fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my rationale when contesting the PROD. This player has multiple appearances in the Scottish Championship pre-dating 2019, when it was agreed on the talk page off FPL that the league was no longer fully professional (see current and established listing at WP:FPL). Therefore this player comfortably meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and has an ongoing career. Article needs improving, not deleting - I am sure @Rusty1111: who edits a lot of QOTS articles can assist with sources. Over 8,000 results on Google. Giant Snowman 19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such agreement on the talk page - the prosaic fact is that the Scottish second tier has never been "fully professional". See User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in Scottish football. In carrying out WP:BEFORE I didn't see any evidence of non-routine coverage for this player, and there is none in the article. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two people wishing for the Scottish second tier to be removed does not, in any way, represent consensus on the matter. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two people wishing for it to be kept, on the basis of their opinions about imaginary other criteria rather than if the league is fully professional or not (it isn't). Everyone else there has admitted that the league was never fully professional, including the only contributor with specialist knowledge of Scottish men's football. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if two people want it to remain and two people want it removed, we would have to say that there is no consensus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what happened here though is it? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly, if the only thing that can be written about the subject are a few minor points during the player's history, there's no reason to keep this or any perma-stub. I know that WikiProject Football has an internal agreement that such perma-stubs are acceptable, but we do not keep them in most other projects so we should star clamping down on the sports fields as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no substantive sources upon which to base a biography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Leighfield's page is even being considered for deletion, when two players for Queen of the South had pages newly created. Rusty1111 : Talk 08:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep Queen of the South are a full professional club, and the championship is mainly professional with a couple of semi pro sides. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maxamuud Xoosh Cigaal[edit]

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

WP:1E + Article does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO or NSOLDIER. Source in the article and BEFORE did not show anything with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 06:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search does not bring anything that gives GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being subjectively the "last" person captured in a fort does not in any way make someone notable. The page tries to claim much bigger impact and importance than really exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added three more sources to the page. The sources describe him as a leading anti-colonial figure as well as one of the main native African sources regarding tactics both by the Europeans as well as the counter-tactics used by Africans. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Taleh#Dervish_forts -- all the sources seem to discuss him in that context and I am not seeing an independent pass of GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please check the sources that are being added against the information that is being added to the article. They are not SIGCOV, they do not support the material being added to the article. They are simply being added to puff up the article, not because they have anything to do with the subject. // Timothy :: talk 14:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Just because a Latinized name is spelled different from its native name doesn't mean the two characters suddenly become different people. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of the sources you are adding are about individuals other than the subject. But directly, how does this reference and this reference support any of the content you have added? // Timothy :: talk 15:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The "Africa in Soviet Studies" source discusses a "false letter". This letter they're speaking about discusses a letter which Xoosh claims was forged by the British to be derived from a man named Salah, a revered individual who the British knew was influential enough to cause a rift within the anti-colonial camp. According to the claim of Xoosh or Hosh, the original letter contained no damnation of the anti-colonial struggle, whilst the forged letter did. (if you are interested in the Salah letter, this page gives some insight [25]). As for the "Diwaanka" source, you most sources have snippets, but this link gives you most of the content (here). If you try word-find the term "Xoosh" on that page, you frequently see "waxaan ka qoray" before the name of Xoosh. The term "waxaan ka qoray" literally translates to "this was derived from" or "this was written from". On the extended Diiwaanka version you see even more such examples. In each of these examples entire chapters of colonial and pre-colonial history is singularly derived from this man. The entire chapter you see on these pages come from this man as a source. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What you just described is a mention of a name, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 15:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, now its your turn to translate what "madaxdii Daraawiisheed" means. It means "head of the Dervishes", meaning Xoosh was among those who led the longest lasting anti-colonial resistance in African hsitory. How does leading the longest anti-colonial resistance in Africa translate to non-notable? Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Go on any translating service and type "madax", the lemma form of the word madaxdii. It will either translate as "head" or "leader". Heesxiisoleh (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Anyone advocating that this page be deleted, you should also advocate that Koos de la Rey and Christiaan de Wet be deleted. This page is essentially an overlapping subject because Boers and Daraawiish not only had the same adversary, but at the same time. Heesxiisoleh (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zane Rowe[edit]

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

Non-notable business exec, cannot find any solid sources (that is, beyond the usual social media, press releases, etc.) and certainly nothing even close to sigcov. Fails WP:GNG -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteno significant coverage found, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Justin Bieber discography. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Best (Justin Bieber album)[edit]

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

A release by one of the most notable singers, but it per-se is not notable. An exclusive release in Japan. No independent coverage/reviews. Could be reasonably redirected to Justin Bieber discography. HĐ (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Justin Bieber discography per nom. D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 22:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Justin Bieber discography. Given that there is no original material on this album it appears to be a marketing thing to increase Bieber's presence in Japan, so music reviewers have ignored it. SK2242 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect same as previous. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Justin Bieber discography; lacks even basic coverage. Heartfox (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021. Obviously this isn’t likely to stand long and the bar for undoing and working in the article is very low. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jendrik Sigwart[edit]

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

No single source cited. Reads like a line of advert. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 06:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 06:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unsourced BLP, although someone previously removed two sources that refereed to a future event. Possibly (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, revert to this revision. Alternatively, redirect to Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 and revert to an article in approximately 10 days. (Eurovision contestants tend to generate massive coverage). —Kusma (t·c) 08:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kusma. — TheThomanski | t | c | 12:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest#Contestants. He may get coverage after Eurovision but until n that happens, a standalone arriving isn't justified. -- Whpq (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has already been established several times that participating in ESC is notable within WP:NMUSIC #10 and #12. And also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or redirect. Subject has not yet competed in Eurovision and is thus not yet notable under the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No such precedent has ever been set. Every AfD on Eurovision performers has however set the precedent that being your countries representative at ESC is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cited WP:NMUSIC #10 and #12, however both are past tense: has been and has performed. Can you provide some AfD examples for future entrant articles that were kept to support your stated precedent? I've personally only seen AfDs after they've participated and for which you rightfully point out that many are kept. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of having an article for someone who may be notable in the future, but isn't yet. Grk1011 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. He’s a Eurovision entrant. All Eurovision entrants deserve pages. EuroAgurbash (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest#Contestants for now, per Grk1011. The subject may be notable per WP:NMUSIC once he performs on Eurovision. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is Germany's entrant for Eurovision so *is* notable. I think the difficulty comes from him being pretty much a complete unknown prior to the Contest so there are very little sources available. But that is, in itself, notable, for someone to be plucked from obscurity into the Finals of one of the world's most popular music competitions. By the strict rules of Wikipedia notability guidelines, his article might need deleting. BUT there is context here which can't be ignored. doktorb _words^deeds 06:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. He's representing his country in Eurovision and is notable per WP:NMUSIC. Furthermore, there is a precedent for other artists who are representing their country in Eurovision getting a page of their own. ser! (chat to me). 12:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BabbaQ and Ashley. There's no rush, when there are enough sources to write a full article, we can undo the redirect at that point, but not before. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G3. Kline | vroom vroom 17:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Shark (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILMS and WP:GNG Jenyire2 06:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 06:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as it seems to be a hoax at worst and OR as best. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:G3 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baby Shark#Legacy. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolick, as this appears to be a hoax and no film has existed by this name, why would you want to redirect rather than delete?DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39: There are music videos and such. Figure for somebody looking for a film, close enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Klaus Teuber. Consensus exists not to keep the article (between delete and M&R contributions) below, so taking the WP:ATD option here. Daniel (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timberland (board game)[edit]

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

PROD declined with no meaningful (and copy-paste) rationale by User:Andrew Davidson. PROD explanation was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". Note that the article makes a claim that "It came in 9th in the Deutscher Spiele Preis"; this is both unclear (what does it mean '9th'? DSP doesn't generally has rankings that go that low) and anyway, that claims is not referenced (it links to BGG entry for the game which does not have this claim). The article has not been improved after dePROD. Let's discuss... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the work of Klaus Teuber – a remarkably successful designer. One would naturally expect their works to attract attention and so it proves. For example, in Eurogames: The Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board Games, we read that "The first issue of The Game Cabinet included reviews of Reiner Knizia's Modern Art and Klaus Tueber's early family game Timberland (1989)...". So, more sources exist per WP:NEXIST and so WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Can you tell us why The Game Cabinet is a WP:RS? This doesn't look very reliable to me, and a review published on a personal web 1.0 era webpage (even if said webpage calls itself a 'magazine' a claim that is clearly unsubstantiated by anything; there is no ISSN, no evidence of editorial board or peer reviews done, etc.) doesn't help establish notability per WP:SPS. PS. I did a bit more digging on TGC, it is certainly an interesting board game history footnote, but in the end, its own 'editor' described it as a "fanzine", so there's that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from actual reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Klaus Teuber - I'm really not finding the kind of coverage on this early game of Teuber's that would justify an independent article. I also checked the German Wikipedia to see if they potentially had any non-English sources that I missed, and it does not appear they have an article on this particular game either. Klaus Teuber is, however, certainly notable, and it would definitely make sense to Redirect this to his article, where a list of his games is present. As this game is not actually present in that list currently, a quick merge would also need to be done as well. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect This seems like a no-brainer. WP is here to present knowledge in a human-convenient way; the only knowledge in this article (apart from the dubious bit about the Deutscher Spiele Preis) is that this is a game invented by the designer. It clearly therefore belongs in the list of games in the designer's article. Of course this never excludes the possibility that it might one day be sufficiently notable independently for its own article. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Takako Chiba

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EClarity[edit]

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

Unable to establish the notability of the company. Searches on Google using various keywords, i.e. "eClarity", "eClarity Singapore" do not turn up anything of note. Thus, does not clear WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. – robertsky (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. lack of reliable references. fails GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Sockstrike --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Kolma8 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any news sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of medical roots, suffixes and prefixes#G. Out-of-process WP:SNOW close. It seems we're unanimous on the idea that a redirect to the above is a reasonable outcome. Thanks all for quickly chiming in, and thanks to Clarityfiend for finding a good target. Ajpolino (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gastro-[edit]

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

The article is part dictionary definition and part index of words beginning with "gastro-", both of which are already at English Wikitionary. I don't see sources that discuss the prefix separately, so I don't think it's an independently notable topic. Basically Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ajpolino (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of medical roots, suffixes and prefixes#G, where it is already listed as "gastr-". Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great! I didn't realize that page existed. Redirecting there is now my preferred outcome as well. Ajpolino (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC (but no strong objection to redirect, as Clarityfiend suggests). The article is not about the prefix as such, nor is there a single topic here beyond titles that contain the prefix. The linked articles are as different as chalk and cheese – or gastroliths and gastronomy. Cnilep (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of medical roots, suffixes and prefixes#G. Neutrality^talk 07:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wolk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated previously deleted subject that fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing in the recreated version fails to indicate notability has increased since the time it was deleted in 2011. Graywalls (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail, part of a series of (mostly deleted) articles around Wolf and his companies. Possibly (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A search turned up a few mentions with others in his field but no wide or significant coverage found. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (3 to Prince singles discography, 1 to Sign o' the Times.) Daniel (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One Song (Prince song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. No in-depth coverage in sources, and no chart success. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all relatively unknown Prince songs, lacking sufficient coverage in secondary sources:

These can be deleted, or redirected to associated album articles, or redirected to Prince singles discography#Internet downloads. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that "One Song" has a pretty good article written about it at medium.com,[26] but that website is basically a blog platform, and is considered an unreliable source. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Strange Relationship" should definitely be redirected to Sign o' the Times if no sources are found... it's an integral part of that album. The others will probably have to be redirected to Prince's discography, they seem to be very limited releases. Richard3120 (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince singles discography. Consider all these singles had limited releases, I do not believe they meet WP:NSONGS. HĐ (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed, wrong forum. Controversy on Szekely language is a redirect, not currently an article. Any discussion of deleting the redirect belongs at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy on Szekely language[edit]

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

As there is no controversy on "Szekely" language, the article is a hoax. Its creator was blocked for "ethno-national provocations and fabrications" ([27]). Borsoka (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like the article has been redirected to Hungarian dialects but not sure if that is even a viable target. You will have to bring it up at WP:RfD.Jay Jay^{What did I do?} 06:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kapstone. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Corrugated[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article .. Fails NCORP. as all the references are mere notices of promotional or from the ir own site. It was kept in 2012, but it did not met the reequirements even then. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP. 174.254.192.112 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge >>> Kapstone, parent company.Djflem (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.packaginginsights.com/news/kapstone-to-acquire-us-corrugated.html

Selective Merge to Kapstone (WP:ATD-M). The Kapstone article presently only has a short sentence about U.S. Corrugated consisting of six words; selectively merging will improve the Kapstone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StagsTV[edit]

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

non notable student tv station at minor university. It's apparently a promotional page for their academic program in the field, with extensive name dropping of people they interviewed and alumni who may or may not have worked on the station. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DoctorsHub (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Sockstrike. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I proposed deletion a few years ago and it was deproded because it "has won a number of awards." If someone tries to make this argument here, they are going to have to explain how those awards are notable because they do not seem to be at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong venue. File a discussion at Requested moves. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gösta Lundqvist[edit]

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

The geologist would be the primary topic even if the sailor's last name were spelled Lundqvist, rather than Lunquist. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this be a Move Request to move the geologist to the base name? Then add a hatnote to each to alert to the similar, but different, name of the other. (Pinging @Tassedethe:, who moved it the other way in 2015). PamD 10:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, this should be an RM. It looks like Gösta Lundqvist (sailor) was merged to Gösta Lundquist 4 days after I made my move. Tassedethe (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desert noir[edit]

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

This is a WP:SYNTHESIS of uses of the phrase "desert noir" to imply that it is a term with wide usage and definition. I do not believe that it is such a term. The article collects several isolated instances where the term or similar terms are used and collates them into a literary/film/musical hybrid aesthetic that is invented - or, at least, has not been robustly theorized and defined by anyone in the literary or popular presses, so far as I can tell. (The Calexico articles referenced, for instance, basically just use it as an evocative buzzphrase.) The band Still Corners uses the term in its promotional literature, and this appears to be where the thrust to call it its own 'genre' is originating. Chubbles (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best this is a neologism, as I'm unable to find where this is a term that is widely used or discussed. At worst it's a buzzword used to drum up sales or original research. Either way, it doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing substantive about this so-called genre, it's just list of things which have been called "desert noir" which should probably be taken to mean "noir in the desert". [Genre in setting] is not a valid article unless reliable sources indicate so. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus Lending[edit]

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

This article by a declared paid editor was kept in 2012, but it does not meet current standards for NCORP. The references are almost entirely placements of lists, or promotional interviews, or straight PR in sources dedicated to the publication of PR, such a Houston Business Journal. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have researched this company in my opinion it fails both WP:CORP + WP:CORPDEPTH, this article appears to be WP:CORPSPAM. Having gone through the article again, if the decision is keep then the article needs WP:TNT. Devoke water 11:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Nasheed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable person Stonksboi (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Stonksboi (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject now clearly passes WP:GNG. This was not the case in the past, its very common for an article to be created and deleted multiple times before the topic actually becomes notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has references from the New York Times, CBS Atlanta,and CNN. Koridas 📣 04:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG, mentionings in US Newspapers like NYT and in CNN+many others, Search for him at Newspapers.com got 167 matches. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per available resources passes GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is clearly notable. The nominator apparently dislikes the subject or thinks that the subject is controversial, but that is not a reason to delete, but to provide neutral coverage of controversies. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't see how this fails WP:GNG at all. Stonksboi please can you elaborate on your nomination and explain why the sources are not sufficient, in your opinion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no problem with his notability. The edit history of the article shows an obvious dispute between people who are offended by his viewpoints and others trying to avoid imbalanced coverage of the supposed controversy. That is probably the reason for the neutrality notice at the top. Calling for deletion is probably an act of revenge by someone offended by the man's viewpoints. That can be yelled about (until everyone gets bored and moves on to a newer outrage) in social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divided region[edit]

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

This list has no effective inclusion criteria (and some entries that don't even seem to match what is already there), being a completely arbitrary grab bag of completely unrelated entities and situations. The title itself is inherently vague, with "region" able to mean whatever a reader/editor wants it to. I don't see how this could become an encyclopaedic topic. As it is it's entirely whatever an editor feels is appropriate, and any possible criteria from the existing title would be so expansive as to be utterly unworkable. It's a classic WP:Original Research type list, and it's also completely unsourced. CMD (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CMD (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Incredbily vague and unsourced, entirely OR. Very sad that this has lasted this long. Yes, we are aware that borders are largely artificial constructs that inherently divide regions but this fails to demonstrate any basis in reality of similarity. Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an original research piece with no sources whatsoever, that has no hope of meeting Wikipedia's standards. It seems to throw together multiple vaguely-related situations into one list without any clear reason as to why. Long overdue for the bit bucket. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and redirect to Partition (politics). (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bromela, California[edit]

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

Gets the typical hits for a California rail location, in this case the inevitable Railroad Commission of California ruling and mention of warehousing at the site, along with a barrage of place-name-drops. But it's yet another isolated siding, in the end, not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems it was for shipping out beans and beets, no evidence it was a populated place. Photo here suggests it wasn't a settlement. ----Pontificalibus 08:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy ML[edit]

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

Covert UPE article on a non notable singer who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a colossal WP:GNG fail . A replica draft under a different name exists in article creator’s Draftspace as Draft:Arlik Wire. Celestina007 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — First they say they weren’t paid to create the article then they confirm that they were indeed paid to create the article. Then they proceed to what I’d best describe as troll me(by copy-pasting a response from a different editor & including this to his statements in my tp) & this is all coming from the article creator who claims (in their Userpage) to have been a Sysop in their previous account but lost the password to that account. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete yet another in a long line of vanity spam drafts-cum-articles with 0 coverage in independent reliable sources. CUPIDICAE💕 01:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet GNG with RS. --Kbabej (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. fails WP:MUSICBIO. DoctorsHub (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - light years away from meeting GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. (Not sure what "drafts-cum-articles" are though...) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW; may meet CSD A7, G11. Clearly fails GNG & WP:MUSICBIO. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 22:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humboldt Circus[edit]

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

I would have just redirected this to the college, but the PROD was contested. I can find no evidence of independent notability for this club. The one source that isn't an event listing is the school's newspaper, so not independent. StarM 00:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a single resource that satisfy GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that a totally unsourced article has existed for 14 years is not what we should be having here on Wikipedia. It is actually overwhelming how many articles on organizations, corporations and products are either unsourced or have as their only source the subject's own website. This is a major problem that needs to be fixed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree with everyone else about this. The article is clearly about a non-notable subject. Probably the other random articles in the "Humboldt State University" drop down template could be deleted for lack of notability also. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I took care of the newspaper, but think the radio station might be salvageable once cleaned up. Looking at the rest of the template now, thanks for flagging. StarM 14:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Olympia Kuwait[edit]

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

Some PR buzz when it opened, but no significant, in depth coverage and nothing to source the claim of "cutting-edge architectural design" in one of the sources. StarM 00:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems like this Hilton has never even existed. When looking for a Hilton in Kuwait, Google Maps only shows Hilton Kuwait Resort and Hilton Garden Inn Kuwait. Neither of them is located anywhere near Al Samiya. In addition, the sources say that it will be the second Hilton hotel after the Hilton Kuwait Resort, so that one is really not it. Looking at the picture of the second source, it seems that the building has been build under the name Olympia Mall. I can't find anything about that building ever having been the location of a Hilton. So what remains are two announcement articles in industry publications of a proposed but never realized project, certainly not enough to establish notability. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hotels that are created are not default notable. Those that never move beyond the planning stage are almost never notable, and we would have to have the level of sourcing to show the planning for a hotel that did not come to be was in and of itself notable, which is not what our very limited sourcing here shows.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it could be redirected, I don't think it's appropriate to create a redirect for each physical location of hotel. Graywalls (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for each individual hotel of a global chain to have its own page, unless something highly significant or noteworthy has happened there. This page should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn in light of new sources. Don't know what was wrong with my search. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lions–Vikings rivalry[edit]

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

Tenuously covered rivalry. Only a scant few sources even call this a rivalry (for example, the phrase "Lions-Vikings rivalry" appears just once in a Newspapers search, from 1981), have never met in the postseason, etc. Seems like a fairly straightforward failure of WP:GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails GNG and therefore fails WP:NRIVALRY. DanCherek (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per refs from Cbl62 (note: the AfD shouldn't have been withdrawn before I switched my vote but I'm switching now). DanCherek (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been a real rivalry, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s. Examples of coverage: (1) 1981 ("Lions-Vikings rivalry shows signs of heating up"); (2) 1972 ("Lions and Vikings Renew Bruising Gridiron Rivalry"); (3) 2018 ("A Brief Look At Lions/Vikings History; The longtime division rivals meet for the 114th time on Sunday"); (4) 2016 ("The hottest NFC North rivalry of 2016? Vikings-Lions? Believe it"); (5) 1968 ("Ex-Lion Hall Awaits 11th Game of Rivalry"... "11th time in the Viking-Lion rivalry"); (6) 1981 ("But the intensity and bruising contact that had marked the Lions-Vikings rivalry was familiar..."); and (7) 1979 ("Vikings, Lions meet -- old fire gone"). Cbl62 (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources listed by Cbl62 are enough for GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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