< February 18 February 20 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Music[edit]

Kings Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is on a non notable music label who haven’t been discussed or covered in reliable sources. A before search shows me user-generated and self published sources such as this, this, this & this thus aren't to be considered reliable since they are all primary sources. Furthermore, the article creator has move warred over this thus bringing it to AFD would be the only viable method to bring this disruption to a halt Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 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. I'm discounting the unsourced allegations of wrongdoing by the IP, which in any case would not establish notability. Sandstein 11:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saggezza[edit]

Saggezza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search links me predominantly to primary sources which we do not consider as reliable. The REF-BOMBING is merely a mirage to induce a sense of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If sourcing isn’t present then the article isn’t notable. See WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree - I think it's an absolute shame companies can hide behind WP:NCORP as a way to conceal their activities and connections, especially those involved in massive data breaches with obvious concerns to the greater public - which Salesforce went out of their way not to notify anyone about, because of course they did.[1] I'd be interested to know if anyone involved in this page has any COI they'd like to disclose - I don't see why we're so eager to employ extremely broad guidelines to provide cover for the companies sharing access to all our private information (one of many reasons I'm not using my normal account for this discussion). 24.237.27.195 (talk) 20:17, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Skivko[edit]

Ekaterina Skivko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My primary concern is that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. In my search, the only article I found that was more than a passing mention was this, which does little to establish notability. Players could get presumed notability through WP:SPORTCRIT if they have played in a major international competition at the highest level, but Skivko hasn't played in the European Championship, nor the World Championship nor the Olympics. There is no evidence that she is a significantly notable figure within handball. According to her stats here and this article, she seems to be playing for the reserve team a lot lately so isn't even a hugely notable player at domestic level let alone international level. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 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 Berkeley Student Cooperative. Spartaz Humbug! 18:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lothlorien Hall[edit]

Lothlorien Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the co-operative of which it is a part is notable, this small dorm-like building (less than 60 students) is not notable by itself. Searches are difficult due to the Tolkien-themed name (don't know if that is why it was named such, but it is what makes searching difficult), but not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Current sources include two primary sources, one blog, and one nice article. But the article is about the co-operative, not the house, although it is mentioned briefly in the article. Onel5969 TT me 12:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree WP:NPLACE - "Bars, pubs, cafes, restaurants, and hotels tend not to survive AfD unless multiple independent sources have written about them in non-trivial detail." The notable particularities of this place have elicited multiple independent queries. The examples below are from culture anthropological and urban development fields:
Info regarding the stand out houses is really important for the students: Consider two houses Cloyne Court Hotel and Casa Zimbabwe, both have their own character with important differences. For example: Cloyne is a sober house, no drugs or alcohol allowed. If we look at the stats we can see that there are a lot of people looking for this info. If you examine the stats for 2019 (2020 would not be a good example). Casa Zimbabwe had 3,463 views, Cloyne had 2,713.
Out of all the houses, Lothlorien stands out the most. Yet at the same time it is considered a representative of the whole BSC system. It very well fits the hippy stereotype that some still associate with this university and its students. Its a very close community, you can't have meat inside the house, there are gardens and tree houses, and to some extent the community has its own diction and vocabulary. Take a guess on which house was the origin of the nude run through Berkeley libraries at the end of each semester? ;) For the past several years it has been one of the focal points of political activity in the USA. All of the above is essential info for both students making housing decisions (a house full of revolutionaries making phone calls 24 hours a day may not be enticing) and important for those interested in whats going on Berkeley. The article you are looking at right now is the info taken out of a BSC subsection. I'm currently expanding it. There is a lot of historical info in newspaper archives that I'm going through and relevant architectural info (historically and environmentally) that I will be adding. The problem with working on it and expanding the info within the Berkeley Student Cooperative article is that it would be making it even more confusing, which is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done. @Johnpacklambert:, @Cupper52:, @Shellwood:, I'm pinging you just in case. Rybkovich (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re notability - "While having house members indirectly committed to a theme does not inevitably produce tension, intra-house dynamics are are highly variable semester to semester. For example, Lothlorien, the vegan/vegetarian-themed house, has also become known as a space of political activism. Lothlorien resident Iman Kazah said, “It took me a long time to learn a certain dialect in Loth,” a house where the culture encourages speaking in a specific rhetoric as to best engender inclusivity". I think that having a co-op house that is closer to being a commune than a dormitory is notable. Rybkovich (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re notability - "As the sole vegetarian house in the 1300 member Berkeley Student Cooperative (BSC), Lothlorien became the de facto eco-theme house. Elves, as residents of Lothlorien are called, are prominent at the forefront of the green movement - just in my four years there, we passed a campus referendum to create $100,000 of funding a year for green initiatives at UC Berkeley, started a collective grocery store, and participated in tree sits." Rybkovich (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re notability - Lothlorien holds theater performances: Activism plays role in student-run production of Bertolt Brecht’s plays Rybkovich (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re notability - Some members consider Lothlorien to be haunted, Two female spirits haunt the co-op — both victims of domestic violence and fraught passion who died while living at Lothlorien years ago. Rybkovich (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re notability - "UC Berkeley has a longstanding tradition of nude activism, stemming in large part from a push for sexual liberation on campus that occurred around the same time as the Free Speech Movement... At UC Berkeley, the practice of streaking to relieve finals stress has been traced back to Lothlorien House, a UC Berkeley co-op." Given the sources above I doubt this is a surprise given the character of house.Rybkovich (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
onel5969, I have an essay User:Geo Swan/opinions/On apologies. I am not looking for an apology from you for insisting that The Daily Californian was not an independent organization. I do expect a clear acknowledgement that this claim was incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic, PBS and BBC are not independent since they receive funding from their respective governments. Where the money comes from is irrelevant, what matters is editorial control. I'm undecided on notability, but I'm not buying the argument that the paper isn't independent. Smartyllama (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you put any stock in the advice of WP:ATA? It has advice at WP:PAPERONLY that says "If offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, are used to reference an article, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy." Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for providing the link to Communities, which has no editorial oversight, and exists only as a promotional tool. So yes, I do put stock in non-online resources, and this one is not reliable.Onel5969 TT me 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. How does it not have editorial oversight? 2. Why would you think it's a "promotional tool"? 3. Lack of independent review does not classify it as unreliable. Rybkovich (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
onel5969 Independent source 1. It's a Magical Life by Ted Sterling 2. While it is a blog and there is a rule. The rule is not set in stone. I looked up the author on linked-in - he majored in architecture, and received an MBA in Sustainable Business, both degrees directly relate to the content of the post. He received his MBA in 2010 while the post was made in 2011. We can see that the post was done professionally - diagrams and reference, as well as how the relevant study was conducted. Also you can see that the blog was run for almost four years, and has multiple posts re the same topic, all done in the same high quality, professional manner. I know that these facts will not convince everyone that the author is a "subject matter expert", but its pretty clear that others will find the source reliable even if he is not SME. Re four directly related articles by DailyCal - Berkeley Student Cooperative is independent of the university, about half of its members are students but not at UC Berkeley. FYI while co-ops do technically fit the definition of a dormitory, they are not usually referred to as such. Per wiki article prisons also fit the definition of a dormitory :) Rybkovich (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the link to the article didn't work through my firefox, but it did through chrome. Also #2. The article is not complete in the link, but my friend is a librarian and sent me the complete article, if you want to read it I can send it to your email. Rybkovich (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: I like your "footnotes and tangents lore and urban legends" rhyme, but we are not in a warehouse rap battle so no need for the attitude. You can keep up with the discussion by starring it. I see one "urban legend", which is listed as such so no need to pluralize. Tangents on lore are required because lore is what makes this house stand out. That is why its always one of the 30+ Berekeley Students Cooperatives houses mentioned in articles about the system. I believe and others will agree that the WP:GNG is met. I see that you're a lawyer, me too. So lets just keep to supporting our propositions as we continue the discussion. Rybkovich (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian's invocation of wp:TNT as reason to delete is an admission that the topic is Wikipedia-notable plus a call to ignore Wikipedia's requirements for giving credit in edit history to editors. It should not be deleted only to be re-created. Please see wp:TNTTNT (to which I contributed) for expansion on these arguments. --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: I don't know what you're on about. If I write an article from scratch about topic A, and you write an article from scratch about Topic A; then that doesn't mean you have to credit me since none of my material was used. Not saying I agree with the delete and redirect approach nor the TNT approach here, but it is widely accepted valid outcome in general. –MJLTalk 18:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, I see that the wp:TNTTNT essay had been modified, and had lost its upfront statement that arguing "TNT" is plainly "acknowledging the validity of the page's topic", and more, which I have just restored. Consensus of a good many editors about that essay, e.g. when it itself was nominated for deletion, is that indeed it is not right or good for us to delete one version of an article, only to replace it with your own, or to leave a hole where it is agreed that an article topic is valid. The bad practice, in cases when an original article was created and developed in good faith (as opposed to copyvios, say) should not be accepted. Discuss further at Wikipedia talk:TNTTNT. --Doncram (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"much of the rest of the article's sourcing fails" thats a strong claim. How does it fail? Rybkovich (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's either not independent, or it doesn't contain significant coverage, or otherwise doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. For example the most cited sources are [1] and [2], which are self-published. Strip out the non-independent sources and there are only passing mentions.----Pontificalibus 14:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontificalibus: Communities Magazine is an independent source, and both it and the specific article are available at universities' research journal collections see. Re "passing mentions", you can find articles specifically about lothlorien - here, here, and here. Berkeley Student Cooperative is non profit corporation independent of University of California, Berkeley. The Daily Californian is a non-profit California corporation independent of University of California, Berkeley. Given the above I don't see how the article fails any one of the WP:ORGCRIT primary criteria. Rybkovich (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGCRIT states that a dependent source is "any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly" - a student newspaper serving one university is obviously closely associated with that university and its students, including any associated student accommodation buildings and organizations such as student cooperatives. It can be used as a source but not to establish the notability of an organization.
However, even if we're generous and agree that the UC Berkeley's Student newspaper is not even indirectly associated with UC Berkeley students and their accommodation we still don't find enough sources with sufficient in-depth independent coverage to satisfy WP:ORG:
  • Sterling, Ted (Spring 2001). "It's a magical life". Communities. 110: 41–44 – via ProQuest. Not independent - akin to a promotional trade publication
  • "Lothlorien | Berkeley Student Cooperative". www.bsc.coop. Archived from the original on 2020-11-26. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Not independent - this is the owner of the building
  • "The Daily Californian - Vegan, Vegetarian Students Find Berkeley Welcoming". 2006-02-23. Archived from the original on 2006-02-23. Retrieved 2021-01-26.One sentence, trivial fails WP:ORGDEPTH
  • "The Daily Californian - Increase in Food Costs Forces Co-Ops to Cut Meal Spending". archive.dailycal.org. Retrieved 2021-01-27.One sentence, trivial fails WP:ORGDEPTH
  • Staff, Sophia Weltman | (2014-03-03). "Activism plays role in student-run production of Bertolt Brecht's plays". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 2021-01-26.Trival, two mentions merely as a location
  • Kurata, Elizabeth; Smith, Conner (2016-04-29). "Demystifying the co-ops". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 2021-01-27.Fails WP:ORGIND - article states "it is also important to note that the writers are both BSC members"
  • "Lothlorien House - History of the Houses". 2007-10-06. Archived from the original on 2007-10-06. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Not a reliable source
  • Ginsburg, Marsha (1995-02-10). "Killer of Berkeley student "Bibi" Lee to be paroled". SFGATE. Retrieved 2021-01-26.Trivial mention
  • "People v. Page (1991)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2021-01-26.Primary source where mentioned in passing - cannot confer notability
  • "A real haunted house: the spirits of Lothlorien | The Daily Californian". 2016-08-14. Archived from the original on 2016-08-14. Retrieved 2021-01-27.Indirectly associated student paper fails WP:ORGIND
  • Staff, Michelle Pitcher | (2015-12-07). "The naked truth about the Naked Run". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 2021-01-24.Trivial mention
  • "Low-income students question whether UC Berkeley co-ops are living up to mission - SFChronicle.com". 2020-10-29. Archived from the original on 2020-10-29. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Trivial mention
  • "Drummond: UC Berkeley students feel the Bern". East Bay Times. 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Trivial mention
  • Staff, Sareen Habeshian | (2016-10-31). "Campus students join protest efforts in North Dakota over proposed pipeline". The Daily Californian. Archived from the original on 2019-04-06. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Trivial mention
  • Alfred (2011-09-05). "It's a Co-op: Lothlorien & the limits of sustainability". It's a Co-op. Archived from the original on 2020-12-01. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Not mentioned
  • Jones, Carolyn (2007-12-02). "One year into protest, UC Berkeley's tree-sitters firmly planted". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2018-06-28. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Trivial mention
  • "Four Remaining Tree-Sitters Leave UC Berkeley Oak Grove". The Daily Californian. Archived from the original on 2016-01-21. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Not mentioned
  • "Solar Photovoltaic - Sustainability". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2021-01-27.Trivial mention- also not a reliable source
Currently the sourcing falls short of what is required to establish notability.----Pontificalibus 19:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are sources in the article which would not independently establish notability. Thank you for listing them.
Re Community, yes its about communities like lothlorien, and yes it targets a specific group of readers and organizations, but that dose not make it solely a "promotional trade publication". Research libraries have them part of their catalogues, the journal would not be there if it was a "promotional trade publication".
Re "absolutely closely associated". Because Daily Cal and Lothlorien are made of students in the same geographic location? Under your definition small town newspapers would not be able to establish notability.
Per WP:IS "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." Can you please leave a list of the vested interests Daily Cal has in publishing articles about Lothlorien. Rybkovich (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, even if you think that the Berkeley student newspaper writing about Berkeley student accommodation is acceptable in establishing notability, these sources additionally fail to meet the other requirements necessary to establish notability. The only Daily Californian article which isn't either a mere passing mention or has an explicitly declared conflict of interest is the one about ghosts. Aside from that the only in-depth article not published by the cooperative themselves is the Communities article. Even if you thought that wasn't promotional, these two sources alone are still insufficient to satisfy WP:AUD - there are no regional or non-specialist sources.--Pontificalibus 08:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the political theater article, which is centered on one of the main themes of the community which is the combination of art and politics.Rybkovich (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re WP:AUD, Community is considered academic as it is held at higher education libraries all over US, the requirement that it can't be "media of limited interest" does not exclude journals on specific academic and/or cultural topics. Rybkovich (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found a detailed description, it is not academic but what makes sense is that academic research libraries have them as a cultural anthropology source for communal living cultures. It is not a promotional trade publication. From the description:
We see Communities: Life in Cooperative Culture as a guidebook for that changing world—one that will help us find ways to live together more effectively in a new age in which we cannot ignore or escape the feedback loops, the effects of our actions and choices on the planet and on one another. If any doubt remained that we are living in an age of koyaanisqatsi (“unbalanced life” in Hopi), this past year of pandemic, racial disparity laid bare, climate chaos, threats to democratic institutions, and much more has eliminated illusions about that. And at the same time, if those of us involved in intentional community and other manifestations of cooperative culture ever doubted that our choices held value and long-term relevance and applicability for our larger world, 2020 has also eliminated our questions about that. Sharing the examples, lessons, stories, visions, practical guidance, and insights emerging from experiments in creating cooperative, regenerative culture in a world that sorely needs it has never seemed more important or urgent than it is today. Rybkovich (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a very niche limited audience per WP:AUD: "...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" (my bold). No such source is apparent, therefore this fails WP:ORG.----Pontificalibus 14:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Is your opinion that its a puffer piece because it describes one of the social rules of the house? Rybkovich (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A traditional fraternity or sorority or college dorm or college-associated house being vegan is a pretty dramatic fact worth noting. Maybe Oaktree b considers it to be a trivial fact, but from my experience it is quite a big deal and conveys a lot about the social nature, the composition of any such place. Hmm, actually the place is not vegan; the article states "Many residents of Lothlorien are vegetarians and vegans, but ...", which is likewise informative in a big way. I !voted "Keep" above, and i think this is ready to be closed "Keep", too. --Doncram (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lil-unique1: The last 90 days is not a good indicator, the page was taken off redirect less than a month ago. Describing a page that someone's put a lot of work into as "fringe" or "weak" that's not nice :( A great editor from the UK once said "If you are uncivil you might want to take a break because honestly? It's not worth it, there is so much more going on in life." Rybkovich (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rybkovich: I was describing the subject not the article as fringe. It is of limited appeal to the a wide audience. When I look at deletion discussions I ask myself two questions "1. is the content notable and reliably sourced?, 2. Where would someone feasibly best access the information best?". If you cannot accept feedback on your work then community-based mediums like Wikipedia might not the best place for you because no article, no matter how much someone has worked on it, no article belongs to any editor. It is not personal - you shouldn't see the decision/or others wanting to redirect an article as a personal attack on either you, your personality, your abilities or your determination/hard work. We can see from the discussion that you are passionate about the topic/subject and your work but the loudest voice doesn't necessarily win. This is a discussion and it won't be solved by repeatedly making the same point. Also just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you shouldn't assume good faith. My contribution to this discussion has no malice and does not from a procedural or ethical point of view have anything negative towards you as a person, editor, or your work. It is simply my view that the topic is not noteworthy for a standalone article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist might be useful, as this is very much in No Consensus territory at the moment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Metropolitan90: I agree to disagree. Being a housing option is one of the reasons that the article can be used for, but not sole or central. Lothlorian stands out among other cooperative living communities. It has unusual and permanent cultural characteristics that persist even though it's group of residents is constantly changing. If you search ProQuest (its publisher) journal database for Communities Magazine 6 different articles come up. One of them is solely about the house and its culture. Communities Magazine should be considered as a respected source in the field as academic research libraries carry it. Rybkovich (talk) 03:36, 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 Yasir Shah. The consensus here is to merge including the nominator. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Yasir Shah[edit]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Yasir Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST which says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Also, note that there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 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 merge to Daniel Vettori. The consensus here is to merge including the nominator. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori[edit]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST which says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Space available on parent article to merge prose, if any. Also, note that there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 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 Tamim Iqbal. No consensus to merge the content exists here, although that can be explored on the relevant talk page of the main article (or an appropriate noticeboard or Wikiproject/RfC as part of a larger discussion) if desired. The content to be potentially merged is still accessible behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Tamim Iqbal[edit]

List of international cricket centuries by Tamim Iqbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. No source discusses his centuries as a group. The consensus is that such lists are not required. Störm (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 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. This required a bit of pondering, but in the end, policy based rationales strongly lean to delete. Rationales to keep are much less convincing and several are more emotionally based rather than policy based. In determining whether an individual passes GNG, including SIGCOV, we have to remove emotion from the discussion and look at what exists in the reliable sources, and in this case, those seeking to delete put forth a much stronger argument that there simply isn't enough significant coverage (ie: more than just listings or being "first") to pass the bar of WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 11:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frances M. Vega[edit]

Frances M. Vega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail WP:SOLDIER (first female Puerto Rican soldier killed in the Iraq War is not notable and we don't have a page for each of the other 15 killed in the same Chinook crash) and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Having a gate named after her isn't notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plaque honoring Vega, during a gate dedication ceremony held at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico
Comment I have also added additional sources to further support WP:GNG: Los Angeles Times reporting on the aftermath of the Chinook crash; a Fort Hood Sentinel report listing Vega as an OIF Hero with a brief description; and a U.S. Department of Defense news website specifically recognizing her as "the first female Puerto Rican soldier born in the United States to die in a war zone." Beccaynr (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear it was a military post office (which was her service specialty) on a base that was handed back to Iraq in 2011 and so no longer exists. Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be claar, it makes no difference, as it is an honor that isn't bestowed on just anyone, and thus sets her apart from everyone else, which is precisely the definition of notability. That said, I see no cite in the article supporting the claim, and we need to question whether or not it has an RS source, something I am doing concurrently here further below in this one edit. Mercy11 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, notability is established by SIGCOV in multiple RS, we don't decide what makes someone notable, the extent of coverage of them does.Mztourist (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. No one said that "notability isn't established by SIGCOV in multiple RS", that "we decide what makes someone notable", or that "notability isn't based on the extent of coverage." What is being said is that an attempt to downgrade her notability by striking down the validity of the US naming a PO after her just because the PO no longer exists is, at best, a failure to recognize the significance of the honor. Mercy11 (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, notability on Wikipedia is established by SIGCOV in multiple RS. An army post office is not an honor as you suggest. I realise that you and several other Users will do everything you can to sustain pages of Puerto Rican "heroes" but they can't be treated differently from anyone else.Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Objectively, it is DOD News, The Fort Hood Sentinel, and the recently-added El Morro making this distinction, and emphasizing Vega as a notable Puerto Rican in military history (DOD News), a notable Hispanic woman and OIF Hero (Fort Hood Sentinel), and as an example of "military women [who] proved to have a crucial role in the defense of our nation" and "paid the ultimate sacrifice." (El Morro). Beccaynr (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The LA Times article only mentions her name. It doesn't go into any detail about her, although it does for several other service members who were killed in the same crash. The first linked Fort Hood article doesn't describe her as an 'OIF Hero' and doesn't even mention her by name. The second one uses 'OIF Hero' as an article header and doesn't tie it specifically to her. The LA Times article might make for a weak 'keep' if we were talking about the shootdown itself, but it doesn't do anything in my view for this article. Intothatdarkness 15:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The LA Times article and The New York Times article I just added both seem important to include as context that supports notability; your comment about whether the incident is notable had seemed to support that, and per the reporting, at the time, it was the deadliest incident since major operations had been declared over in Iraq; at least two major news outlets covered it in depth and noted that Vega was one of the soldiers killed. The Fort Hood Sentinel article that is currently the second citation in the article has an 'OIF Heroes' header that is immediately followed by "Spc. Frances M. Vega" and a brief description, as well as a list of additional soldiers with brief descriptions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then perhaps the incident should have an article, and this be merged into it. She's listed first in the Fort Hood article because the deaths are sorted chronologically. I see no particular reason to single her out above the other 15 soldiers who were killed in the same incident, as Mztourist mentioned earlier. Intothatdarkness 16:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (eta) The link supposedly pointing to the dedication of the gate at Ft Buchanan goes to an archived biography of a National Guard general officer. There's no mention of the dedication at all. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Fort Hood Sentinel article says the list is "in keeping with our observance of Hispanic Heritage Month" and "Let’s not forget these brave women!" - that kind of recognition, as well as the US DOD recognition of Vega as "the first female Puerto Rican soldier born in the United States to die in a war zone," and her honors and awards, appears to create an objective basis for a stand-alone article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I still don't see anything especially notable here when it comes to her individually. Intothatdarkness 17:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that level of mention conveys notability, though, we should also have an article for Sgt Ernest Bucklew, who was killed in the same crash. According to the Fort Lee Traveller [[3]] he was the only 89-Bravo solider to be killed during OIF and had a corridor in their training facility dedicated in his honor. There may be others in the crash who had the same level of recognition, and at least Bucklew's family was interviewed in some of the cited articles. Intothatdarkness 17:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also the Associated Press article about Vega that was in the article before this AfD nom, which provides further support for WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Beccaynr (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One very brief story in AP isn't sufficient. Mztourist (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AP report includes information about the circumstances of Vega's death and burial, commentary from an Army spokeperson, information about her posthumous awards, as well as biographical information. In addition, there is in-depth coverage from the LAT and NYT about the Chinook crash that provides additional context to the AP report and helps develop the encyclopedic content in this article. Vega's honors and awards are documented in RS, including her posthumous Bronze Star and Purple Heart, as well as the gate named after her and the Army post office. In additional, several military-related publications specifically honor her, as noted above (DOD News, Fort Hood Sentinel, El Morro). All of this appears to support notability per WP:BASIC, which recognizes that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AP story is the only RS about her, the other stories are peripheral about the crash and then various primary US Govt sources about the gate etc. Once again a collection of low quality sources added together to try to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El Morro appears to specifically disclaim primary source status, because this is posted in the publication: "Contents of EL MORRO are not necessarily the official views of, or endorsed by, the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, Department of the Army or U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Buchanan," and the Fort Hood Sentinel article is an editorial. I also disagree about discounting the LAT and NYT coverage of the Chinook crash, because of the content it adds to this article and the demonstration it provides of the notable circumstances. Beccaynr (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a reference from US Central Command about the Frances M. Vega Army Post Office, and how after the Post Office closed, a sign from the office was moved to the U.S. Army Adjutant General's Corps Museum in 2012. Beccaynr (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the article should be kept because it is well-sourced with sufficient RS cites. In addition, the US Govt named a PO after her and the US military honored her with her own plaque at a major US military base. It is precisely this sort of sourcing, accolades, and legacy what defines the bio notability guideline and not personal opinions like " 'the first female Puerto Rican soldier killed in the Iraq War' is not notable" or "we don't have a page for each of the other 15 killed in the same Chinook crash", when those facts are stated by the DOD, and are not original research by editors. Just as bad is the argument "having a gate named after her isn't notable", when the DN isn't about the notability of gates. Mercy11 (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Basic Criteria of WP:BIO, SIGCOV in multiple RS is required. Its strange that you say that WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant but then claim that the US Army (not Govt) naming a post office after her, putting up a plaque and naming a gate are relevant signs of notability - that is just substituting your own subjective criteria for the community consensus of SOLDIER and so is of no greater merit. Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Act I: "You say that WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant but then claim that the US Army naming a post office after her [is] relevant"............This is a beautiful example of the "False Exclusionary Disjunct" fallacy, namely, "If WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant, then the US Army naming a PO after her must also be irrelevant", which is just as logical as "If Fido is a 4-legged animal, then Fido must not be a dog":
  1. Fido is a 4-legged animal or Fido is a dog.
  2. Fido is a 4-legged animal.
  3. Therefore, Fido is not a dog.
Act II: Editors may be interested in how another group of editors has just determined they feel about the meaningless value of WP:SOLDIER --and how quickly it's making its way into the Decommissioning Bin, precisely because a few unlearned editors keep attempting to elevate it to part-of-the-Holy-Trinity status: Anyone interested, can go here.
Mercy11 (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic argument is a farce. Its clear that want to dismiss one set of notability criteria (SOLDIER) and then impose your own notability criteria of Post Offices and plaques. As I said read WP:BASIC because that is what is required for this and any BIO. I am fully aware of and actively participating in the Milhist discussion regarding SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if you don't understand logic; I suggest you read the "False exclusionary disjunct", which I wikilinked for you before hoping you would read; FED is a fallacy widely covered in Logic 101 courses. That was the whole point, that your entire response section starting "Read the Basic Criteria of..." was an FED fallacy and, thus, an illogical argument from you. You will need to think of something else to attack my Keep arguments. Mercy11 (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the plaque honoring Vega that is linked above in this discussion as an image, it says, "Specialist Frances M. Vega epitomizes the character and patriotism of the countless American Soldiers who have answered the call to defend freedom." Beccaynr (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does not change the fact that the plaque was NOT provided by the military as was previously asserted, or the fact that the plaque is part of a larger unit-centered memorial. That statement is also the boilerplate language you see on many plaques. I understand the desire to honor those killed in the line of duty, but so far I have seen nothing in RS that says why SHE is more significant or notable than anyone else who was killed in that incident (aside from statements about her origin, but the other Puerto Rican who was killed in the crash doesn't seem to have an article, nor does the other female bronze star winner). I think an argument (although possibly a weak one) could be made that the incident itself is notable and deserving of an article, but I remain unconvinced that Vega herself meets that bar. Intothatdarkness 17:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the plaque says it is from the Installation Management Command, so it does appear to be provided by the military. It is also not clear to me how this is related to a larger memorial, and even if it was, how this specific recognition of Vega isn't relevant to her notability, particularly in the context of her other honors, specific recognition by the military, and the coverage in independent, reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source used in the article says specifically the memorial was funded and provided by the unit association (and the article's claim she's listed number four isn't supported by the linked source). I see you're referring to the gate plaque, and I thought you were talking about the 13th ESC memorial. And as Mztourist has pointed out, the coverage of her specifically is very limited in RS (and was nonexistent in at least one source used). Accuracy is important, and there seems to be a lack of concern about that here. And I remain unconvinced that her notability is demonstrated in RS. Intothatdarkness 17:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the National Guard biography reference you mentioned above, it has been removed from the article and relaced with a reference from El Morro, which discusses the gate. References are needed for the additional honors, but the 13th ESC memorial may be less relevant when compared to the distinct honors and recognition from the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, military base gate, military post office, and recognition by the military (and commentary) for which specific RS already have been found. Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:SOLDIER, "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article," and that does appear to apply to this article. There is an Early life and Education section that includes details about her birth and family from the Associated Press, as well as information about the specific and general context of her military career sourced to the Associated Press, Stars and Stripes, and The Chicago Tribune. In the Death section, there is additional information about her military career sourced from the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, and her posthumous Bronze Star and Purple Heart are sourced to the Associated Press. In the Legacy section, her military career continued to serve as an inspiration, in the specific honors she received by having a military post office named after her (sourced to U.S. Central Command related to the sign being moved to a museum because it was the last active military post office in Iraq), and a gate at a military base named after her (sourced to El Morro), with a plaque that specifically honors her for epitomizing "the character and patriotism of the countless American Soldiers who have answered the call to defend freedom." I think the sources in the article about the circumstances of her military career help provide encyclopedic content as to why the military chose to honor her, and it is more than for simply being the "first female Puerto Rican soldier killed in the Iraq War." Per WP:HEY, this article has been expanded and updated to make Vega's notability more clear, per WP:BASIC and WP:SOLDIER. Beccaynr (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should read this current discussion about SOLDIER and whether or not it should even be used in deletion discussions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#rfc as you will see the consensus is that GNG/BASIC is all important. Her awards do not meet #1 of WP:ANYBIO and she still lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS and so HEY does not apply here. Mztourist (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a prime del argument — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes first female Puerto Rican soldier any more significant than any other female soldier from anywhere else dying in a war zone? Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right; I've struck my vote, but remain neutral on keep/delete. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But what if a subjective focus on 'first female Puerto Rican soldier' is a strawperson, and Vega's notability is actually based on WP:ANYBIO, due to her significant military honors and recognition? The Iraq war was a historical breakthrough for many female soldiers, and at least two news outlets have chosen to include Vega as they covered this phenomenon in depth. The in-depth coverage of the specific and general context of her career and death adds encyclopedic content to the article and helps show that she is notable for more than simply being the 'first female Puerto Rican soldier to die in a war zone.' She also is objectively recognized for this by independent and reliable sources, so this fact also has notability per WP:BASIC, but the analysis seems incomplete if it only focuses on this one aspect, as if it is the only source of her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She does not have significant military honors. None of the provided RS go into any detail about her career, and I have yet to see in-depth coverage of her in particular in any of the RS cited. She is one among many, and her origin is the only thing (aside from gender) that's called out about her in coverage. Intothatdarkness 16:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marine 69-71:, that sounds a lot like wikilawyering to me. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 17:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this proposal helps demonstrate why a standalone article for Vega is warranted - independent and reliable sources highlight her service in particular, as noted above, and she has received distinct honors, as noted above. An article on the Chinook crash may be warranted, but due to the amount of attention Vega has received from the military and sources, it seems like it would be more appropriate and readable to link from a Chinook crash article to Vega's article for additional detail. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews are not a valid consideration for notability in any way whatsoever. Nsk92 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yes, I know it's been open 16 days, but it hasn't been relisted at any point and discussion is still taking place so I don't see what harm 7 more days will do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned most of this above, as well. At least two other individuals killed in the same event received similar levels of recognition, meanings hers was not singular in any real way. Intothatdarkness 02:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The latest LA Times article added is from 2004, and there are two Chigago Tribune sources now included in the article. I think that these are not passing mentions, including because the 2004 LA Times article includes biographical information, and both Chicago Tribune sources include commentary from experts that support Vega's notability. These are not trivial mentions that might otherwise exist in standard lists of soldiers killed in war; Vega is repeatedly named and discussed as part of a larger notable context, and this helps support why Vega has been distinctly honored by the military, per WP:ANYBIO. Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, The book, per WP:SELFPUBLISH is likely not a reliable source. It is a self-published book (Dorrance Publishing Company) so it shouldn't be in the article and does not count towards SIGCOV. TJMSmith (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, this all goes away if it's just a random white dude. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be repetitive - I was trying to add additional rationale to what I have already stated, address changes that have been made to the article since I last commented, explain why more more robust encyclopedic content would help improve Wikipedia, and note that Blue Riband►'s recent comment didn't mention the gate or plaque, nor the sources that specifically discuss or mention Vega in the context of her being female and of Puerto Rican descent. I also don't agree that providing context and content about the circumstances of Vega's service, including in the form of expert opinions, is 'padding' - I think it would instead help improve Wikipedia. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beccaynr by my count you have made 19 comments on this AFD which is becoming WP:BLUDGEON. Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Zero indication that she meets WP:GNG. ♠PMC(talk) 23:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Krakhmaleva[edit]

Sofia Krakhmaleva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD concern was A BLP on a youth-level handball player with no assertion or evidence of notability. The sources in the article either don't mention her at all or contain just the bare minimum database info such as name, DOB, nationality etc. My WP:BEFORE search only comes up with passing mentions or more bare minimum database entries. There is nothing to suggest a passing of WP:SPORTCRIT (youth level sports is not generally considered 'the highest level' and she has not competed at the equivalent of these championships at the senior level) nor is there any realistic chance of passing WP:GNG.

Contested with she plays in the highest Russian league which is the second best league in the world [5]

There is no SNG for handball so players are expected to meet GNG. The only source that I could find on her was this which is a brief post on her club's own website so therefore does not qualify as an independent source (see WP:IS) and, therefore, does not confer notability. Players could get presumed notability through SPORTCRIT if they have played in a major international competition at the highest level, but Krakhmaleva hasn't played in the European Championship, nor the World Championship nor the Olympics. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of those sources address the concern that Krakhmaleva does not meet WP:GNG, which is currently the only applicable guideline. GNG requires there to be independent sources addressing Krakhmaleva directly and in detail. Note that the only source even coming close to doing this is the one that is from her club's own website, which is therefore not an independent source. Competing in those competitions that you mention do not confer notability since they are not the highest international level of handball (the Olympics, World Championships and European Championships all exist). Regarding beach handball, if it can be established that the overwhelming majority of players competing in such a tournament pass GNG, then maybe a guideline can be introduced which means all sportspeople competing in that tournament are presumed notable, however, the fact that Krakhmaleva can compete in all 10 games in that tournament and still not get any GNG-level coverage would make the likelihood of such a guideline gaining support unlikely. If you can provide WP:THREE sources addressing Krakhmaleva directly and in detail I will happily change my stance. Thanks Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a clear illustration of how minimal the coverage of beach handball is, do a search on any players listed at Hungary women's national beach handball team; almost all of them would fail GNG comprehensively. This is a team with a much better record than Russia (twice European champions and most recently runner up in 2019). I would strongly oppose any guideline that suggests that people playing beach handball at any level are notable by default. Also, most of the players in the most recent World Championship final seem to fail GNG with the exception of the players that already have an established career in normal handball. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven help *rolleyes* -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:30, 27 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 (talkcontribs) 23:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Rougeau[edit]

Vincent Rougeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources appear only primary Jenyire2 20:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:59, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kjell Jensen[edit]

Kjell Jensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD: "There is Significant coverage cited in the article, and there would be no problem digging up more". Fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as an amateur footballer with a famous brother). Although the deprod makes a vague wave to WP:SIGCOV there seems little realistic prospect of sustained, non-routine WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Nielsen, Atle (2008). Sportsklubben Brann: 100 år med tro, håp og kjærlighet (in Norwegian). Bergen: Schibsted. pp. 247–251. ISBN 978-82-516-2658-3. Yes Looks to have been written by a veteran radio journalist/writer of national repute Yes Looks to have been written by a veteran radio journalist/writer of national repute ? I would accept this for WP:V but don't think it helps much to establish WP:N. I would be very surprised if four of the 251 pages are given over to "significant coverage" specifically of Kjell Jensen. ? Unknown
Vaksdal, Birgitte (2008-07-09). "Kjell Jensen er død". Bergensavisen. Retrieved 2009-06-01. ? Local newspaper but looks to be copied from Brann.no Yes No Three line obituary in local paper, which has a circulation roughly half that of the Teesside Gazette. No
"Kjell Jensen". Sesonger i Eliteserien. Aftenposten. Archived from the original on 25 February 2012. Retrieved 26 June 2009. Yes No The information (zero appearances) is demonstrably wrong. No Profile page at a defunct 'stats' website which has his date of birth, a generic placeholder image, and says he made zero appearances. No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KFM Records[edit]

KFM Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A record label that does not appear to be one of the more influential or important indie record labels, therefore not passing WP:NMUSIC. A WP:BEFORE search under "Knife Fighting Monkeys" and "KFM Records" yields little meaningful coverage and certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. No obvious alternative to deletion either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 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 Jack Armstrong (artist)#Cosmic Starcruiser. Sandstein 11:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Starcruiser[edit]

Cosmic Starcruiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails general notability guideline. Only one reliable source (HuffPost). A Google search did not find any mainstream sources. Only incoming link is from the article on the co-creator. No articles in other Wikipedia languages. This article has similar content to Cosmic Starship which was recently PRODded by Bri and deleted by Liz and was about a similar work by the same artist. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Extensionalism "X". Verbcatcher (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 19:59, 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. Sandstein 11:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kickidler[edit]

Kickidler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL monitoring software, coverage largely consists of WP:ROUTINE reviews. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 19:54, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geir Hasund[edit]

Geir Hasund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD with the wording: "nonsense". But demonstrably the article subject doesn't meet either WP:NFOOTBALL (having played well before the Norwegian men's football league was 'fully professional') or WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Nielsen, Atle (2008). Sportsklubben Brann: 100 år med tro, håp og kjærlighet (in Norwegian). Bergen: Schibsted. pp. 247–251. ISBN 978-82-516-2658-3. Yes Looks to have been written by a veteran radio journalist/writer of national repute Yes Looks to have been written by a veteran radio journalist/writer of national repute ? I would accept this for WP:V but don't think it helps much to establish WP:N. I would be very surprised if four of the 251 pages are given over to "significant coverage" specifically of Geir Hasund. ? Unknown
Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 19 at the Norwegian Football Federation (in Norwegian) No Published by the national association Yes No A simple list of stats which the national association compiles for every player in the Country No
Eikrem, Allan (25 September 2012). "Hasund er tidenes Hødd-spiller" (in Norwegian). Sunnmørsposten. Archived from the original on 4 January 2014. Retrieved 25 September 2012. Yes Local newspaper ? Article inaccessible (dead link) No Routine coverage in a local newspaper article No
"Geir Hasund heteste navnet i fotballens høstjakt" (in Norwegian). Norwegian News Agency. 8 October 1992. Yes Norwegian News Agency Yes I expect so although I am unable to access it due to it being offline No Looks like more routine transfer speculation after he banged in a few goals in the second tier No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I wonder whether you correctly understand this process. If a passing mention in a deprecated source is the best you can find then your keep vote doesn't carry too much weight. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:18, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jahmill Flu[edit]

Jahmill Flu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Passes NFOOTY with 5 Eerste Divisie appearances around 10 years ago, but I see little evidence of any GNG-level coverage. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 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 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 07:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Westland Row[edit]

CBS Westland Row (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP:ROTM school, search finds nothing beyond primary sources and directory listings etc. — fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL. Go for it! Fob.schools (talk) 21:01, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Hansson[edit]

Patrik Hansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD with the wording: "Yes it was." (?) Fails WP:FOOTBALL having played before the Norwegian or Swedish men's football leagues were nominally 'fully professional'. More importantly, it heavily fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for the Allsvenskan being "fully professional" at that time? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:56, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microbridge[edit]

Microbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines and references only single primary source. Could not find additional references. Allanlw 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Allanlw 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 19:14, 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 keep. Not the largest number of opinions, but it seems clear nonetheless that there is significant coverage to satisfy gng. Fenix down (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joar Hoff[edit]

Joar Hoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD: "he ought to pass GNG as he has won the Norwegian First Division as a manager. a quick google search gave me https://www.aftenposten.no/sport/fotball/i/70BAM3/fotballtrener-joar-hoff-er-doed and https://www.fosna-folket.no/nyheter/2020/11/23/Joar-48-har-f%C3%A5tt-meitemarken-til-%C3%A5-trives-der-det-tidligere-var-fj%C3%A6ramark-23046589.ece, and there multiple articles in the norweigan newspaper archive" Still fails WP:NFOOTBALL as winning a part-time, semi-pro league in the 1970s is not inherently notable. The coverage alluded to looks like mostly lightweight sports-reporting fluff, falling short of WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:33, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ove Jørstad[edit]

Ove Jørstad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD: "not uncontroversial; the ref in the external links would suggest some degree of notability and there are plenty of results here - https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Ove%20J%C3%B8rstad%22&mediatype=aviser" Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and the coverage alluded to at the nb.no archive looks to fall well short of the WP:SIGCOV required for WP:GNG Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Børge Hernes[edit]

Børge Hernes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD: "played in the champions league so not uncontroversial". Still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelappan Thampuran (cricketer, born 1937)[edit]

Kelappan Thampuran (cricketer, born 1937) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether it would be possible to contact Cricket Archive to do so - of course the same argument can be made for the fact that we don't know who "CricPhotos" is and neither CA or CI make these clear. You can never be sure of the sourcing of images unless they are cited sufficiently. Not a badger, by the way. Just an interesting curiosity which seems to only apply for this side. Bobo. 21:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 19:01, 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 no consensus. Opinions are split all ways. Discussion on redirecting or merging should happen on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Beeson[edit]

Ronald Beeson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 18:58, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Lived In My House?[edit]

Who's Lived In My House? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:TVSERIES and WP:GNG. A wp:before search yields nothing of interest. There are also no incoming links to the article. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 18:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 18:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 18:31, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XS International[edit]

XS International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG and WP:NCORP. Sources are either Wikipedia articles, PR pieces, or general reference articles - no reliable information about subject. Cannot find any reliable sources in web search. Article is basically promotional in nature. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 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 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 00:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toru Suzuki (darts player)[edit]

Toru Suzuki (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:45, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chengan Liu[edit]

Chengan Liu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:41, 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. Dennis Brown - 11:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Di Zhuang[edit]

Di Zhuang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:38, 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. WP:GNG is the gold standard for notability, and all other criteria derive their authority solely from it. Dennis Brown - 11:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basit Saeed[edit]

Basit Saeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salam Bhatti[edit]

Abdul Salam Bhatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing notable about him, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 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 merge to Colab. Daniel (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colab Members[edit]

Colab Members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an appropriate list for Wikipedia.This is just a membership roster. Per what Wikipedia is not, "Simple listings" of clients/customers/members and such of a run of the mill group shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I objected earlier about this same membership directory being in Colab but that wasn't a suggestion to branch off to a separate article and link articles pointing back at one another like a mesh network. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Postdlf: I didn't mean that judiciously selected and properly cited names are not allowed, but what amounts to a roster of essentially all members is within NOTDIRECTORY. I nom'd it, because the long roster that's not suitable in the article was created as a new article as soon as I removed it. If it was a pre-exiting list, I would have re-directed. Graywalls (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIR doesn't give such specific answers or directions. What matters is what is appropriate or relevant for this subject. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luxo Jr 2: The Reckoning[edit]

Luxo Jr 2: The Reckoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, fan-made film (not by Pixar). ... discospinster talk 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 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. I declined speedy deletion because I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lynn (preacher). I was going off Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lynn (pastor) in 2015. This is a recreation after an AfD in January, so speedy deletion is correct. Apologies for the confusion. Fences&Windows 17:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Lynn (pastor)[edit]

David Lynn (pastor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy for re-creating article that was previously deleted in AFC was denied because it was substantially different than article that was deleted in 2015. I don’t know about that article but I do know the article I was thinking of was deleted in January 2021 for non notability. This article is a bit of an improvement but I still believe the issues raised in that discussion are valid here.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lynn (preacher) ThurstonMitchell (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:03, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kimball Cariou[edit]

Kimball Cariou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person whose primary notability claim is being the leader of a fringe political party without legislative representation. As always, this is not an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL that would exempt a person from actually having to clear WP:GNG on his sourceability, but the sources here aren't getting him over GNG -- eight of the thirteen footnotes are just raw election results from his unsuccessful candidacies in federal and provincial elections, one is his "our leader" profile on the self-published website of his own party, two are his "our contributors" profiles on the self-published websites of media outlets he's written for, and one is from a non-notable blog -- which means 12 of the 13 footnotes are doing absolutely nothing at all to establish his notability. And the only source that actually represents real media coverage isn't about him, but just briefly namechecks him as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is the general phenomenon of minor parties -- which means it isn't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only real source in play, because it isn't about him. As always, the notability test in a situation like this is not the ability to use election results tables and staff profiles from his own employers as technical verification that he exists -- it's the ability to use substantive and detailed media coverage about his work in the role as verification that he and his work have been independently deemed as significant. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 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 merge to MFA Oil. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break Time (convenience store)[edit]

Break Time (convenience store) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find coverage sufficient to pass WP:NCORP. There are currently no independent secondary reliable sources and all I can find is trade press. [9][10][11] Fences&Windows 14:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 14:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 14:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 14:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of AfDs is that on average discussions are closed after 1 week, so theoretically you have until Feb. 26. But note also that the Break Time website's Alexa Global Ranking stands at #5,754,697, which is very low. G'Day, History DMZ (HQ) (wire) 02:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that having two websites hurts their Alexas ranks for both. I'd also bet that there's other companies with Wikipedia articles whose site rank is lower. I'm not dismissing what you're saying - just that I'm not sure it should be a major gauge of a company's encyclopedic worth.
Another thought; as a separate entity, Break Time is ripe for some private equity firm to swoop in and make MFA Oilan offer they can't refuse (a common practice, lately).

I've been toying around with a basically ground-up re-write. Since this is my first time doing something this extensive, no doubt the bots'n'bullies will circle this like vultures. Clearly, I'm far from finished, but would appreciate feedback on what I've got thus far; User:BoringJim/Break Time (edit)        —  BoringJim (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the draft looks promising and a clear improvement over the current live version. I would still suggest, per the nominator's opening comment above, to avoid "trade press" and to not lose sight of WP:ORGSIG and how important it is that reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it. Cheers, History DMZ (HQ) (wire) 14:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fences and windows, Rorshacma, History DMZ, Hog Farm, and HighKing:, please see my total re-write of the article in question. Perhaps it might change your mind on your vote?
This is my first such endeavor of this magnitude, and I kinda rushed the end to meet today's deadline. Fortunately (unfortunately?) I actually have more I can improve upon.        —  BoringJim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned editors might not reply in time, so I recommend leaving a "note to closing admin" at the very bottom of this page asking the closer to take into consideration your draft before making a final decision. History DMZ (HQ) (wire) 06:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone else can? Last time I called for an Admin, it went badly.        —  BoringJim (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BoringJim to save time, can you post links (or identify specific links in the article) that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? Right now the article is refbombed with 48 references. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* 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. So we want to avoid the "echo chamber" of stuff entirely based on company announcements or trivial events. So a "Q&A" session on a "new look" fails WP:ORGIND. An announcement on the appointment of the 5th CEO fails WP:ORGIND. etc. HighKing++ 11:48, 27 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) 00:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Name[edit]

Behind the Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable website, fails WP:NWEB, no meaningful coverage CUPIDICAE💕 14:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of those awards make it notable. Further, there's no actual coverage and nothing that meets NWEB. CUPIDICAE💕 12:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. The mentions/awards on USA Today, Yahoo! and Britannica.com make it notable. See also its Alexa Global Ranking at #20,482 which is quite decent and the equivalent of, for example, Eurosport (see its own global ranking almost at #20,000). I see no harm in re-draftifying. Cheers, History DMZ (HQ) (wire) 23:19, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.Priime[edit]

P.Priime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined multiple times at Draft:P.Priime and this version is no improvement on those declined versions. There is nothing here that demonstrates a passing of WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. There is strong consensus that passing mentions and a couple of Q&As, generally, are not enough to meet GNG. My WP:BEFORE search is coming up with the same few sources already in the article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinesh Sinha[edit]

Vinesh Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable businessperson with unreliable sources. The prev. version was deleted speedy as advertising, and this is not much better. It was able to evade AfC because the contibutor had accumulate the necessary number of edits by creating the now -deleted article.

The accomplishments are minor: At AfD discussion in the past few years, awards for 30 under 30 and the like have been usually taken to indicate "Not Yet Notable". They're purely PR awards, they are organized so a great many people get the awards in mone or another of the very many categories, and have no other significance. Similarly the top 100 listing designed for promotion, with multiple categories. And the one possibly significant award listed he didn;t win, it's just a nomination.

He founded two non-notable companies. he invested in another. The promotional nature is even more clearly seen in the infobox's education section: "London School of Commerce (Dropped out)" which reminds me of the legendary CV that included "BA (failed)" 00 Tho it's fair to say we have thousand of bios which list "attended" not "graduated" -- some of these are typically non-degree programs, but others, we should re-examine.

The photo is an obviously profesionala portrait, licensedd here as "own work"

I assume an undeclared coi editor, for they've worked on nothing else

the references are what we'd expect: mere notices abut either him or his companies, or promotional write-ups about the minor awards, and promotional interviews where the subject (or their PR representative) is allowed to say whatever they care to. Consensus now is these are not independent. DGG ( talk ) 10:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Derrick[edit]

Richard Derrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm concerned that Derrick doesn't appear to be notable enough to have an article. The sourcing issues are similar to those at related articles Crane (musician) and Box-o-Plenty Records, both also up for deletion. I found this blog post but little else really about him. Most of the article appears to have been written by Derrick himself so there are WP:COI and WP:V issues present. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indescribably Blue[edit]

Indescribably Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article - about a song, not an album - has no references that meet the requirements of WP:NMUSIC. All links given miss the mark. Whiteguru (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:32, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naciye Kara[edit]

Naciye Kara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD concern was Only capped at U17 level so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and the best source found in a WP:BEFORE search was this so there is nothing to show a passing of WP:GNG.

The article was then overhauled and the PROD removed but there are still no sources that establish notability through GNG. Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=30&kisiID=974339 Yes Yes No Just a profile page on the national FA website which every footballer has No
https://www.sakaryayenigun.com.tr/baianlar-2nci-oldu-haberi-17817.jspx Yes Yes No Mentioned once in a local paper No
http://www.adapostasi.com/11079-futbolun-perileri-ccedil-ami-dikti-haberi.html Yes ? No Name check No
http://www.adapostasi.com/13203-futbolun-perileri-2-rsquo-de-2-yapti-haberi.html Yes ? No Name check No
https://www.uefa.com/womenschampionsleague/match/2020201--konak-vs-hibernians/?referrer=%2Fwomenschampionsleague%2Fseason%3D2017%2Fmatches%2Fround%3D2000808%2Fmatch%3D2020201%2F Yes Yes No No coverage to speak of here No
https://www.milliyet.com.tr/skorer/turkiye-4-yunanistan-2-1111216 Yes Yes No Passing mention in an U17 match report No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:42, 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 no consensus. Likely to be back at AFD if sources aren't incorporated soon. Dennis Brown - 11:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mridula Vijay[edit]

Mridula Vijay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there is no reference that she played a significant role in listed productions joxinmcdaniel (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2.https://english.mathrubhumi.com/movies-music/movie-news/tv-stars-mridula-vijay-yuva-krishna-to-enter-wedlock-movie-1.5299849 3.https://malayalam.indianexpress.com/television/mridula-vijay-yuva-krishna-star-magic-video-451944/

These are only some sources I would like to attach here to establish the subject's notability. Its clear from the sources that the subject is a major actress in malayalam serial industry and has also appeared in some tamil movies. Source no 3 specificaly mentions that The actress is famous for appearing in several number of TV serials and shows. She is also a notable model and dancer as per the sources .Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 13:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 08:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jack Frost (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ED-209[edit]

ED-209 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage regarding real world notability to pass gng. Onel5969 TT me 16:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not present in the franchise article, and it's not the right article to be talking about the in-depth development or cultural reception of a secondary character. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 08:30, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes[edit]

2018 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:EVENT criteria, exclusively based on Azerbaijani sources and official's statements, with no WP:RS. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not sure how you came to the idea that it's "exclusively based on Azerbaijani sources" when half of the sources are third-party WP:RS or Armenian sources. The event has been covered by several third-party, reliable sources such Eurasianet ([12]), OC Media ([13]) and bne IntelliNews ([14]). Event is clearly significant and notable for the region (as proven by previous sources), and the 2 involved countries (as can be seen from the large number of Armenian and Azerbaijani sources writing about this). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is based primary on Azerbaijani Defense Ministery's statements with 10 unreliable sources from Azerbaijani media. There are lots of Armenian sources unrelated to the clashes/operation. This, possibly, was added per editors' WP:OR. The sources from Eurasianet, Intellinews rely on Azerbaijani official statements. This event has to be confirmed by reliable independent sources, also there is notability issues. Otherwise this is WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:EVENT. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:JDLI. Biggest clashes in the Armenian–Azerbaijani border since 2016, the biggest clashes in the Armenian–Nakchivan border since '94. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even CivilNet says it was larger than what NKR lost in 2016, and confirms the death of an Armenian serviceman in the border with Nakhchivan. Also, an Armenian official confirms it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per which reliable source this is Biggest clashes in the Armenian–Azerbaijani border since 2016, and who says this were clashes? This is what I was talking about: WP:OR. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CivilNet. Provide sources to say otherwise. Which other "interclashes" conflict attracted the attention of Eurasianet, OC Media, or Jerusalem Post? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CivilNet is not a neutral source. This is what Eurasianet says, based also on Azerbaijani officials' statements:

"The advance seems to have taken place without any fighting, and the Azerbaijani forces remain on their side of the internationally recognized border. But they have reportedly taken up new positions in a previously unoccupied neutral zone in Azerbaijan's exclave of Nakhchivan near the Armenian village of Areni."

The article also mentions the number of killed military personnel, I am wondering, per which source? The whole article is either Azerbaijani statements or WP:OR. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CivilNet is a major Armenian source. Maybe not neutral when it comes to the Karabakh conflict, but biased in favour Armenia, and won't do Azerbaijan's propaganda. For the record, this version of the article mentions the fact that the casualties are not confirmed by third-parties and are solely based on the parties' statements. If this is the problem, such thing can be reverted. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think rewriting the article may help. It doesn't meet WP:EVENT. Armenian sources reported death of a soldier, there is no information that it was related to this "clashes". Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch Emis, this not being clash is reported by the Armenian side. The Azerbaijani side clearly states that there were clashes, even one Azerbaijani dead. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 08:22, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communities Without Boundaries International[edit]

Communities Without Boundaries International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organisation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 08:18, 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 Tally Solutions. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talkcontribs) 16:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tally.ERP 9[edit]

Tally.ERP 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like the TallyPrime article, this is just prime spam. The article is WP:REFBOMBed with PR announcements and not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like it's either redirect or delete. Relisting one more time to see which one should be the result.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:05, 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 , rather weakly, but a consensus does exist. No prejudice towards recreation (including any other administrator undeleting this article and draftifying) if the state of play changes. Daniel (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi[edit]

Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the published work by the subject does not seems to have significant impact on the field of study. The subject has won some non notable awards. But he does not have recieved independent coverage from multiple sources to establish notability hence fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 08:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*criteria

I compiled the average total citations, total pubs, h-index, highest citation, and highest first-author citation for Chaturvedi and ~100 of his coauthors (with more than 30 papers--people publish in this field a lot).
Total cites: avg: 2669, Chaturvedi: 2366.
Total pubs: avg: 94, C: 264.
h-index: avg: 18, C: 24.
Highest cite: avg: 351, C: 113.
Highest first-author cite: avg: 95, C: 87.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kichu, yep, I should have clarified that the criteria I was assessing were for NPROF C1, which seemed to be the NPROF criterion he was most likely to pass (but I don't think he does). JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 07:30, 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. North America1000 09:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FXdirekt Bank[edit]

FXdirekt Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See article's talk page. Not meeting notability guideline CORP or any other guideline. Also, no sources. Dirge Jesse (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 07:21, 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. Of the two keep votes, one doesn't discuss any relevant guidelines. The other provides a couple of sources, one of which is an interview with a local radio station. I'm not seeing sufficient indication of GNG here. Fenix down (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Cann (referee)[edit]

Darren Cann (referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod with no reason given. My prod rationale was "fails WP:NFOOTY; also borderline WP:TNT". I see no mention of referee notability at WP:NFOOTY. Launchballer 21:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other referees are only considered notable if they pass WP:GNG and have significant coverage. For what it's worth, I would strongly oppose any attempt to include referees in NFOOTBALL. Referees simply do not get as much direct coverage as the players or the managers and I would strongly oppose giving them any presumed notability just because they officiated one game between two fully professional sides. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:11, 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) 05:52, 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. Dennis Brown - 11:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Lovely[edit]

Eddie Lovely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaz Cousins[edit]

Gaz Cousins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 05:18, 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. North America1000 05:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Creek, California[edit]

Patrick Creek, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now the Patrick Creek Lodge, but earlier topos label it either "Patrick Creek Guard Sta" or even "Patrick Creek Tavern". GHits tend to be for the creek itself or the campground across the road from the lodge. No indication that this was ever a town, and while I found one discussion of the lodge itself, I wouldn't call it enough to make it notable. Mangoe (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 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 keep. Nominator withdrew and no other !votes except keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talkcontribs) 20:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Cross[edit]

Hot Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any WP:RS on this band Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator: additional sources found; withdrawing as no other commenters have appeared to endorse deletion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't realize that this article had already gone through AfD before I submitted it via Twinkle. Not sure what to do, I guess I'll just let the process proceed, which will probably end in 'keep' since I don't have any additional reasons for deletion beyond what the first AfD had. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rolf h nelson: The previous AfD was back in 2006 so cannot be considered relevant to this discussion. I see from your other comment you may now be doubting whether to keep the AfD running or not, at you have opted to find and assign some sources yourself? I was pondering a relist, but I sense you may also be considering withdrawing the nomination? Bungle (talkcontribs) 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle: Yes, good idea. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a couple of sources (AllMusic bio and a Stylus album review), though I doubt it'd be enough to establish notability CiphriusKane (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Stylus review is a good find, I hadn't found it when I did my pre-AfD search. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few more bits, like an AllMusic review, a PunkNews review, and this PunkNews article. The PN review looks user-submitted though (attributed to sk8punx4evr, which looks like a user handle) and the PN article looks like a rehashed press release, even if it was written by the site's founder CiphriusKane (talk) 07:44, 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. Sandstein 11:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aerowings[edit]

Aerowings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable airline. Only in operation for a couple months, nothing to suggest notability. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 03:15, 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Five[edit]

Legacy Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are associated or primary or routine coverage in the lone souther gospel magazine out there. The awards and nominations are not well recognized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 13:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Mohan[edit]

Swati Mohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely narrow coverage mostly by tabloids. I'm not sure if the meets the nobility criteria. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. RationalPuff (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Turner (darts player)[edit]

Martyn Turner (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 00:04, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Littleton[edit]

Tony Littleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 00:00, 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 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amarda Arkaxhiu[edit]

Amarda Arkaxhiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donika Nuhiu[edit]

Donika Nuhiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. (Notability tag since February 2019) Lorik17 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 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 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 08:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evi Reçi[edit]

Evi Reçi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 12:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irini Qirjako[edit]

Irini Qirjako (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 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 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 07:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zef Çoba[edit]

Zef Çoba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The composer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues (tagged since 2011), lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 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 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 08:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rexhep Hasimi[edit]

Rexhep Hasimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Composer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 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. North America1000 07:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artan Tushi[edit]

Artan Tushi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Composer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 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 keep. Dennis Brown - 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gjon Simoni[edit]

Gjon Simoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Composer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:33, 27 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esat Rizvanolli[edit]

Esat Rizvanolli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Composer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 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 The Children's Channel#Tiny TCC/Living. And protect. Content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 11:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Living[edit]

Tiny Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whilst I have contributed to this page before, really, Tiny Living can barely, if at all, count as notable.

A long-defunct pre-school programming block, there is almost nothing about this that can be found anymore, except YouTube views and maybe some fanmade/user-generated webistes describing the block in a likely inaccurate manner and bias manner. At least, that is all a search gave me.

At the end of the day, this is just a poorly written stub that has been unsourced for fourteen years, is very unlikely to be expanded, and very likely fails WP:GNG. Maybe the article could be redirected to Sky Witness or The Children's Channel? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:23, 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.
  1. ^ "Salesforce On The Breach: Consumers Fight Back After Their Data Was Sold On The Dark Web". Epiq Angle. Retrieved 22 February 2021.
  2. ^ McLane Company (4 January 2021). "Top 202 Convenience Stores 2020". CSP Daily News. Winsight Media. Retrieved 21 February 2021.