< February 21	February 23 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Procopius (disambiguation). Seems to have been merged. Sandstein 11:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procopius (Romans)[edit]

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

This is mostly redundant with Procopius (disambiguation). The page was originally created as another of the Roman gens articles, i.e. meets a particular definition of family from early Roman history, which is not the case here, so the rationale behind this article's creation was mistaken. Several of the listed individuals have nothing to do with each other save for name (WP:SHAREDNAME), and therefore belong in a disambiguation page rather than here. Avilich (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the correct procedure would be to merge this with the other page—make sure that everyone listed here is listed there, if they fit the criterion of being named "Procopius", and make sure that any of the others can be reached from the related articles, then convert this title into a redirect. The title may still be useful, since disambiguation pages can be split, or this title might be used as a "prosopography page". Even if all of the content is redundant, merging is still the procedure to follow—the disambiguation page may need some revisions before converting this one into a redirect, and it's not clear that there's anything wrong with this title—at worst it still seems like a plausible formulation for the topic. P Aculeius (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either deleting or merging might do, but search terms like this are inherently unlikely since one will either know the desired target beforehand or just type "Procopius" without the parenthetical specifier. The target is only called "Procopius (Romans)" as a result of your own belated move of it from "Procopius (gens)". I don't see this becoming a prosopographical page since shared personal name alone does not make an association of individuals notable (WP:SHAREDNAME), and the individuals on the bottom have nothing to do with the others anyway. Avilich (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've merged the only missing entries to the dab page (just the two Procopius Anthemiuses). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:41, 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 no consensus. As I noted above, it looks like there is some sourcing, but there is little here to confirm what it says and whether it is sufficiently significant. Whilst the rationales underpinning the keep votes are week, I am not seeing a clear consensus to delete here. Fenix down (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Tore Amundsen (footballer, born 1968)[edit]

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

Disputed PROD with the wording "meets NFOOTY, pro games". This is a factual error, article fails WP:NFOOTY as this player's handful of game in the top men's division of Norwegian football took place well before the league was 'fully professional'. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of non-routine coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched but could not find any detailed coverage in Norwegian newspapers about this particular Jan Tore Amundsen Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lyn was clearly one of the strongest Norwegian football clubs in the early 1990s, and Amundsen played several games for that team. Coverage of footballers who were active in the 1980s and 1990s are a bit hard to find online, but a look in the newspaper archives of the National Library turned up some results. In particular, I have made some expansions to the article after finding content in Romerikes blad that have covered his achievements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An attempt has been made to provide more sources to support gng. The fact they are offline is of no consequence but I think there needs to be more description as to what they contain. From the article, it looks like routine transfer talk, but it's not clear. Difficult to close as a keep on that basis, would be good if contributing editors could provide a bit more information on the source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles I found are from the newspaper archives that the National Library provides to all Norwegian IP-addresses. However, not all newspapers are available outside of the libraries. Romerikes blad is one of the newspapers freely available. The coverage is sports news, in particular I found a post-game report of a quarter-final where Amundsen scored three goals, and a pre-game report of a match between LSK and Lyn where some coverage of ex-LSK players who had transferred to Lyn was given. I have avoided the routine coverage such as the line-up of a particular game, but coverage of a player in the body of an article is "significant coverage". The coverage of Amundsen during the 1980s and 1990s is on par with the coverage of individual Norwegian Premier League players today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think there is probably just about sufficient sourcing here to satisfy GNG. Comments since the last relist seem to echo this and I thnk we are just about over the line in terms of consensus. Fenix down (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Berstad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously kept at an AfD in 2011 on the basis that it passed WP:NFOOTBALL, but the criteria subsequently changed and the Norwegian men's Premier Division is no longer considered a 'fully professional league' during the period this player was active in it. Also fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not play in a full professional league and clearly fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played nearly 200 matches in the top division. Yes technically not 100% fully pro league back then but this nomination is on a technicality; clearly top level footballer in a top level club. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that somebody playing in a top level league in e.g. Guam is automatically notable? Giant Snowman 11:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the country in question is Norway, whilst not the strongest league in the world certainly not the peripheries of football e.g. Andorra or Guam etc. Wasn't exactly an amateur pub league, clearly this person was an established pro footballer at the highest level in a reasonable European league with pro teams. He has amassed a lot of caps Abcmaxx (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know this is WP:MUSTBESOURCES, but given he played 300-odd times in Norways top tier, I feel there would be no difficulty in linking to reliable secondary sources should they be easily accessible. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been backed up by the sources found by Spiderone (thank you). Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strongly agree with Abcmaxx. --- Løken (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - covered heavily enough [1] [2] [3] Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Vote-wise, we're angling more to keep than delete, but there hasn't been a great deal of discussion around sources to prove gng. Spiderone has kind of started this but a bit more focus on this side of things would help a stronger consensus one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found another newspaper article which a bilingual Norwegian & English speaker could potentially use to expand this article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 28 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 07:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supremacy (1940 board game)[edit]

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

Game geek though I am, this is a classic example of lack of GNG sourcing. Neither evidence nor assertion of notability of any kind appears. Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. versacespace talk to me 02:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything. Ideally we'd redirect to an article on unofficial varients. I don't believe we, yet, have such an article. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 25 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 23:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of conservative United States legal figures[edit]

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

The problem with this list is the same problem identified in this 2006 AfD: There's "no true way to determine accuracy of [the] article", and it's "inherently impossible to be NPOV with such a topic." A list like this requires editors to make value judgments about who is "conservative enough" to be included. It's easy enough to include Scalia and Thomas, but what about borderline cases like Kennedy and O'Connor? Powell? Black? Harlan? The first Justice Roberts? Or, for that matter, the second Justice Roberts? I could go on and on - and that's just the Supreme Court Justices. This list includes appellate judges, district judges, attorneys- and solicitors-general, and even professors. If all that's required is the use of the word "conservative" in a newspaper clipping, I could list hundreds of notable figures who could be placed on this list. There are no useful criteria that could winnow down the list, which is why it includes everyone from dyed-in-the-wool right-wingers (Alito, Thomas) to libertarians (Pilon) to near-leftists (Posner) to many, many people in between. But my point isn't that the list is wrong or even overinclusive - it's that it's impossible to assess objectively without interposing my own views of what it means to be a "real conservative". The list thus necessarily violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and so it ought to be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nomination confuses the issue of whether reliable sources consistently describe someone as "conservative", with whether someone is "really" a conservative. So long as there is a consensus among relevant sources, it doesn't matter whether that label is "objective", and ultimately it's a self-identification or a characterization by others rather than a concrete fact anyway. So I'm less concerned with who "is" conservative and more with how broad "legal figure" is. I'd expect most judges nominated by recent Republican presidents would be considered conservative, and then add to that applicable state court judges, lawyers, legal scholars, etc... postdlf (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're both getting at the same root problem, which is that it's impossible to list every legal figure whom the reliable sources consider conservative. (Just the list of notable figures would run into the hundreds or even thousands.) We are thus left to exercise our own discretion on whom to include, which inevitably raises NPOV and OR issues. And it doesn't help that there are so many shades of grey: e.g. Scalia himself was "liberal" on many criminal justice issues, while a justice like Kennedy was conservative on free speech and federalism while being liberal on abortion and gay rights. The reliable sources don't just stuff people in red or blue boxes, and neither should we. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both "conservative" and "legal figures" are such broad terms that they could encompass anyone from Scalia to a district attorney that ran as a Republican. Because such a broad definition is so all-encompassing, it doesn't really make sense for this to be a list. If anything, a category would probably be better, with an equivalent for liberal figures. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 22:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reasonable enough to assume that most justices, judges, attorneys general, solicitor generals, etc. appointed by Republican presidents are conservative legal figures. While that's not always the case and some are better known than others, I'm not sure how this can be structured with adequate inclusion criteria to limit its size to be encyclopedic and not a bullet-pointed, context-free list. Reywas92^Talk 23:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination and above comments, almost any legal figure who is conservative could be included in this list and is very objective. We don't even have a list of liberal United States legal figures why does it make sense to have a list for only conservatives. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This a topic area that is way to broad and is subject to, like many lists, of dumping in people for whom there is not consensus that they actually belong in this category. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too broad of a subject for a list article. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 01:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is very broad and subjective. Redoryxx (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know what criteria applied here to create this list because the subject is very broad but there should be a list available for both conservatives and liberal United States legal figures. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with above , the topic is broad and has no consensus. Alex-h (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete conservative means different things to different people at different times. There is no agreed on definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's too broad for a list. This kind of thing is better handled by categories and subcategories. The list would just be too long to be helpful. Spudlace (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 11:21, 28 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 23:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simonds of Botesdale[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am an enthusiastic and unabashed deletionist at the best of times, and an article like this just really helps my case. Sadly Wikipedia can't be a depository for each and every company which runs buses through regional streets and this article is clearly not notable enough for inclusion. The sources, which are plentiful, are nonetheless mostly primary source or unremarkable. Fails CORP. doktorb _words^deeds 21:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should've been booted the 2nd time round!, Hopefully third time lucky!. Cannot find any evidence of any notability, fails BASIC/GNG and NCORP. –Davey2010^Talk 22:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm finding only routine coverage, which is inadequate under the intentionally strict NCORP standard. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Devoke water 00:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above. Cuoxo (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:39, 26 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. Those advocating keep have supplied sources and the best arguments. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Berry (politician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meeet wp:politician. A perennial candidate but has never held office and has had very little media attention. The only evidence of him being a "political commentator" are blog posts and his Youtube channel with 161 subscribers. Most of the article is referenced to blog posts, press releases, and his Youtube channel. -- haminoon (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree that Berry has had very little media coverage. While there are a fair few blogposts and press releases referenced, I counted and the majority of references are articles from news outlets on him over years, many of which he is the sole subject of the article. Nexus000 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG (just) in my view. He's enough of a crazy to attract a lot of media attention. He was the highest-profile New Zealander affected by the Twitter purge earlier this year (see here). In 2018, his Northcote motorway proposal gained him a lot of attention. None of the news coverage used as references goes into biographical details, but many are more than just passing mentions and I shall list those here:

There isn't any media coverage from his 2013 mayoralty run that's part of the article. He came third, which surprised everyone and is not a shabby result for running in Auckland. So there will be sources from then that aren't part of the article yet. Not that it matters, but Berry would be a member of parliament right now if he had not pulled out of the 2020 general election; he was #9 on their list and they won 10 list seats; he pulled out in July 2020 for health reasons. Schwede 66 01:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he does fail NPolitician, he does pass GNG in my opinion and as outlined very well above by Schwede66 JW 1961 Talk 16:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove and agree with haminoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burned Toast (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like it does meet WP:GNG. Social media followers usually are not reliable indicators of notability. I also do not see much self-published references that are mentioned by the nominator. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 12:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this smells of a paid article/COI and is overly promotional. All of the coverage, including the coverage above, is routine and political. If this is kept, we absolutely have to clean up the promotional links. SportingFlyer T·C 13:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made this page. No paid article or COI. I thought having an elaborate 'external links' would mean a good resource on the subject. But I've done it for a few articles and people have since removed the links, so I won't continue doing it. Happy for a cleanup if the tone isn't right. Nexus000 (talk) 13:28, 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 delete. Sandstein 11:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manzariyeh Petrol Depot, Isfahan[edit]

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

It's only a gas station Reza Amper (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GEOLAND. One of (estimated) thousands of articles mass created by User:Carlossuarez46 pertaining to un-notable localities (Gas stations, Railroad stations, Post offices) and passing them off as Unincorporated communities.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 23:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is about a filling station, without any evidence of notability. Also its Farsi equivalent is under deletion on FaWiki. Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:00, 26 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) 20:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glory (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The brief text provided reads like it's been copied straight from a press release, and the one source is a short interview from his local "what's on" listings magazine (archived here [4]) and I haven't found anything better. Doesn't appear to have been updated in almost ten years, probably because there's nothing to update – as far as I can tell, all he's released since his album Celebration (which has already been PRODded by another editor) is a compilation album and three mixtapes all entitled Bread Crumbs, none of which have received any coverage at all in reliable sources. Just about the most recent thing I have found is a brief promotion for a 2017 video on a non-RS site which STILL calls him an up-and-coming artist, after more than a decade of making music [5]. Richard3120 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be one of the hundreds of newish rappers signed by major labels then left to languish in obscurity/album purgatory, which is unfortunate for them but still results in obscurity. News searching is full of false positives but I haven't found any coverage from rap publications. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomingstuff's explanation of this article has me cracking up. Anyway, delete. versacespace talk to me 02:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even back in 2004, a rapper should have known to choose a name that is more Google-able. Even with targeted searches like <"Glory" + "rapper" + "Celebration" + "Giddeon"> I can find nothing beyond a few leftover social media posts and streaming entries. He was up-and-coming for a few minutes, down-and-out for 17 years and counting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: but I guess it's not as self-aggrandizing to choose another name... Richard3120 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per all above. Cuoxo (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 11:42, 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 no consensus. Those who advocated for 'keep' would do well to make the improvements to the article that were discussed in this debate, to ensure this article isn't back at AfD in three months time. Daniel (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warriors characters[edit]

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

A section of this article was split into a new article, but was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warriors ThunderClan characters for lacking notability and violating WP:FANCRUFT. The main article is extremely long and discussion should decide if it is deleted on the same basis, or if we allow this article to be split into numerous parts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-scope If each section is overly long, but not notable enough, perhaps we should at least re-scope in some way. 5a5ha seven (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have same opinion as above. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing said here is reason for deletion of a whole list. If it's bad it should be improved.★Trekker (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some list of characters may be useful, but this is full of fancrufty plot summary and such. Not sure if WP:TNT is warranted, but it is very messy and mostly unreferenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 129 books, this is a massive series with a lot of characters. No valid reason given for deletion. If you want to divide it into separate articles because of size, or discuss which characters aren't notable enough to remain on this list, do so on the talk page. Dream Focus 19:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we decide not to delete the article, this should overrule the previous AfD and the article should be split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm mildly biased, as a longtime Warriors fan, but the series is incredibly sprawling, and while the list definitely needs to be re-tooled, the franchise itself is large enough that there should be some separate page for a list of characters. To show that it can be done, about a week ago I managed to cut List of Kung Fu Panda characters to about 1/10 its original size. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speaking as a long-time contributor to this article (and others under the wikiproject), though less active lately, I do agree that the article could really benefit from being improved in the sense of having more references both to the books and to third-party sources. Most minor characters on this list would not have non-in-universe references, but arguably, this is the case for many similar franchise character lists: e.g. List of Star Wars characters, List of Harry Potter characters, etc. To address the suggestions above about potentially splitting this list: this has been tried a couple times in the past (see the records of deletion for List of ThunderClan cats, List of RiverClan cats, etc.). I was personally involved in one of those attempts (initiated precisely because we felt the list was getting too long), and they have not been successful in the past as it was always felt that once split apart, the lists were not considered to meet notability. You can search User:Brambleclawx/List and all the suggestions listed are basically transfers of the split lists before they were deleted. My current inclination is that a lot of the plot summary can be cut down: the number of entries may not be trimmable due to the sheer number of characters, but the overall length can be cut down by removing a lot of in-universe material to focus only on details important to the overall character/plot arcs (rather than minutiae about what happens to them in each novel in the series). That will be work-intensive but doable, but then afterwards there will also be an element of maintenance: this list is frequently contributed to by fans of the series whose (good-faith) inclination will be to document every detail they can find about each character. I am of course happy to try to do that maintenance, but I am nowhere near as active as I used to be, and the list is simply not monitored as well as some of those lists for larger franchises I mentioned above, so it may re-accumulate. But my overall opinion is still to keep, since the issue at hand is really improvement/trimming. Bramble claw x 04:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Potential to re-scope the article can be discussed elsewhere. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and drastically clean-up. This one is in truly rough shape but it is definitely a notable and discriminate topic. This could use a trim of minor characters, or characters who should be covered as groups instead of individuals. Archrogue (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is something that belongs on fandom. This is so far WP:FANCRUFT that it literally fits the exact definition. "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." It isn't well written, it's citations are poor and too few for the 470,000 bytes this article takes up. Flalf^Talk 04:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging users involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warriors ThunderClan characters as I think its important to have the input of users involved said discussion. @Johnpacklambert:@Drmies:@Spicy:
Keep There are several areas that need to be trimmed (the excessively in-universe parts, and the long descriptions about minor characters), but a list of characters in a creative work is a perfectly valid stand-alone list topic. — Goszei (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the point on WP:TNT, the recent 90% reduction at List of Kung Fu Panda characters demonstrates that excessively in-universe lists like these can be successfully rescoped and trimmed down in situ. — Goszei (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a terrible example if you're looking for "in situ" correction; there are 5 existing references and 0 to independent sources for a list of some 40kb. That's terrible. My own efforts at List of Mass Effect characters in July 2017 with earlier cuts in January 2013 (including stuffing an auxiliary list back in!) and March 2013, followed by what I would describe as decent efforts after by Masem and Haleth to better provide appropriate weight to the real world aspects of the characters is a much better example (and Haleth has even split several characters off to their own articles since, which I see as a success!), but even then I had content to work with that had citations. This article has approximately 0. I am well aware an "in situ" fix can be done, this article would simply have nothing left after such a fix. --Izno (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. This list is exemplary of how not to write about fictional topics. It lacks independent reliable sources and fails to explain how the topic itself is notable, even with the loosey-goosey application of WP:LISTN. Blow it up and start over. --Izno (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Izno: Complete destruction of hundreds of thousands of characters of work is not the way to go about this in my opinion. There is much good-quality content from this article. Plot summaries, often cited to the source itself, are unavoidable in a list of this type. At the very least, it should be moved to draftspace until it is ready, instead of deletion; it is definitely not unsalvageable. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 00:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I subscribe to broken windows theory in regard to the cruft that accumulates in corners of our fictional articles, especially list articles that are walking WP:NOTPLOT violations (which I forgot to mention, woops!). This list is one such. Draftifying it won't save it and will just put garbage in another space to be deleted by G13 when the time comes. An article 13 years old deserves an actual choice on the matter, so we should make the decision now to remove it. If there is something to save, it will come from actual WP:RS discussing the topic(s) in some detail. This isn't it. "Destruction of hundreds of thousands of characters of work" is some misnomer; it's "destruction of hundreds of thousands of characters of work that should never have been wrought (at least not here)". --Izno (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it happens, there is a Fandom with 4000 articles on the subject. They can and will do justice to the topic from a fictional point of view that we have no hope of approaching, even if we have 440000 characters on the topic. --Izno (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Izno: Eh, the page serves a legitimate encyclopedic purpose - to summarize each individual Warriors character - not to simply create a plot summary. Fandom is in general held to lower standards than content on Wikipedia. Allowing the content to be here raises the bar and makes it of higher quality. This article can be useful, to people who want a more in-depth look at the series than what is currently on the page. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 19:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the ultimate decision, in my opinion, of whether an article should be kept or deleted should come down to whether it is harmful for it to be left up. The list does not contain any content that would warrant this judgement, such as egregious misinformation or self-promotion; it is simply an article that, although needing improvement, can still be useful. It is true that most of the people who find this article to be useful are Warriors fans; however, I don't see any harm with letting the article stay on Wikipedia, which gives it the benefit of being held to higher standards than it would if it were removed, and restored somewhere else on Fandom wikis. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 00:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like it can be kept with WP:NFICT#Lists of fictional elements. I do agree that the article is too long and the article needs to be shorten significantly. However, WP:TNT may not be the best option. The point of WP:TNT is that sometimes restarting an article takes less effort than fixing it. In this case, however, the references are all mostly non-online sources so restarting may take a lot of effort. It also seems like a lot of the content can simply be removed outright for completely being unsourced, so it may take less effort than expected to fix the article. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 13:02, 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 delete. Sole keep vote makes no reference to relevant guidelines or provides any sources which might indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Valley Amateur League[edit]

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

The Premier Division sits at the 14th level of English football, so is significantly below the notable level. It has had very, very occasional coverage in the Derbyshire Times and the Buxton Advertiser (a search of both newspapers' websites will show you that this coverage is not regular nor in any great depth when it is covered). Since the league has been around for a while, I did a search of the newspaper archives but this did not yield any WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. All we can see there are occasional reporting on AGMs or just a brief results round-up; in most cases, this took up a mere fraction of a column in the local paper. This league seems no more notable than the several deleted recently. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not comfortable with the spree of league deletions occuring. They might not be of national interest, and may not be high up the current pyramid, but they contain notable teams and have decades of history. The Hope Valley League is one such league with interest from both sides of the Pennines, and teams that are notable enough to have their own page (Hathersage F.C. for one). There are tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles out there dedicated to people, items, organisations and others that are nowhere near as noteworthy as the Hope Valley Amateur League. 92.9.45.199 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion is ever truly uncontroversial as every topic is always of interest to at least someone. Hathersage are notable because they have played in a national competition (the FA Amateur Cup) and not because they have played in the Hope Valley League and, in any case, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and every topic must be notable in its own right to have an article. The only applicable notability guideline here is WP:GNG. If you can share WP:THREE sources showing significant coverage of this league, I will happily reconsider my stance. It must be said, though, that the newspaper coverage that I linked in my archive search above was minimal; often taking up a very small fraction of one column and akin to the sort of coverage that routine notices about someone's cat being missing or an announcement for a car boot sale receive... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low-level, sub-county level with only local coverage and interest. Personally I would see this as any more significant than eg my local town's operatic society. Coverage in the local press but little else. Nigej (talk) 14:15, 25 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 Greater Essex County District School Board. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeshore Discovery School[edit]

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

Schools that are not secondary schools are very rarely notable. The sourcing here is not enough to show notability and my google search found no other sources that would indiccate an actual passing of notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be an unremarkable school; I searched but could not find any sources that would satisfy WP:SIRS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greater Essex County District School Board, per WP:ATD. It's a unique enough name to retain as a search term. Beyond a listing, which already exists, there's not really anything to merge. 174.254.192.137 (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greater Essex County District School Board, per the IP. In the event that someone comes looking for it, at least they'll find some relevant item of information. BD2412 T 19:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greater Essex County District School Board. Fails the GNG in light of the absence of any secondary sources. (This is of course not terribly surprising: few elementary schools are notable.) Redirecting to the school district's article is the ordinary procedure, as redirects are cheap. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadezhda Kolesnikova (handballer)[edit]

(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 at this moment in time. In my search, the only sources I could find were ones of the calibre of this one, which does little to establish notability. I have also looked through every news story here and found no detailed coverage of her as an individual either. Invariably, she is just mentioned as part of a group of players. There is a lack of a focus on her specifically.

Players could get presumed notability through WP:SPORTCRIT if they have played in a major international competition at the highest level, but Kolesnikova 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. Maybe she will rise to that level in a few years but she also might not. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A draft already exists here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create, 2020-12 ✗ R2, 2020-12 move to → Draft:Nadezhda Kolesnikova (handballer)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This meets a variety of WP:SK criteria. Prolonging this, imo is pointless. However, I will immediately revert myself upon request on my talk page should there be an issue. (non-admin closure) CUPIDICAE💕 17:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) CUPIDICAE💕 17:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Nuamah Donkor[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV Jenyire2 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenyire2, did you made a WP:BEFORE search? Google News gave me 224 results for him, seem to be a former member of the parliament (although I went not through them, just a quick comment). CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely notable as he was a member of parliament. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clear WP:NPOL pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The question is not whether a WP:BEFORE search was done, but whether the article makes a statement of ipso facto notability. It does. He was a member of the parliament of Ghana, and that is what. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added additional references to the article. Celestinesucess (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Aside from being a member of parliament, the subject served as Minister of Health for Ghana, certainly meets WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV, more references are needed though. Ampimd (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Elected member of a national legislature and a minister of a national cabinet. DS (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:ToBeFree as an instance of block evasion. BD2412 T 19:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trees Died by Lava[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Besides topic is vague. No citations Jenyire2 18:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Gazamp (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - there never will be any citations. This user was blocked indef a few days ago for making these articles. This should be speedy deleted as they are editing using another account to bypass the block. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Siorovigas[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Alleged time spent in AEK not corroborated by other sources like AEK official website: [6] Page previously deleted by A7. Page creator got butthurt over PROD nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero decent coverage found in a search; fails WP:GNG by a long, long way Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 26 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) 17:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chas Chandler (character)[edit]

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

A fictional character, no reception/analysis, just a plot summary and list of appearances. PRODed with " The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". PROD removed with a copy-paste edit summary by User:Andrew Davidson. Half a year later, the article isn't improved (just a bit more WP:FANCRUFT added). Given that the PROD has been removed, I don't want to stealthily redirect it without discussion. I therefore suggest soft deletion by redirecting this to List_of_Hellblazer_characters#Francis_William_"Chas"_Chandler. Thoughts, comments? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is not policy-based – WP:FANCRUFT is an essay with no official standing. And it is apparent that the nominator is abusing Prod/AfD to try to force someone to work on the article, contrary to WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY: "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians."

As for the topic, it already has a good selection of sources and it is easy to find more such as this good account of the character or the Encyclopedia of Weird Detectives.

So, the policy WP:ATD applies as usual – "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." – and deletion processes are not appropriate.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, What makes "bamsmackpow.com" a WP:RS? As for the Encyclopedia, all I am seeing there is a passing mention in a sentence that lists a number of different characters, so it seems he doesn't even have as much a single sentence dedicated solely to himself there. If there is anything that meets SIGCOV there, please provide a page number or a quotation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deletion is not cleanup, coverage for television and movie appearances suggest notability. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Etzedek24, What coverage? Could you list any sources that provide any that meets WP:SIGCOV? TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, Between what Andrew D has offered and the sources in the article, I find it is a slim pass of GNG. And I have to echo the comments about how these nominations verge on abuse of PROD/AfD. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 06:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no discussion from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changez Charity[edit]

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

Aside from a brief buzz surrounding the Duchess of Cambridge possibly being interested in being a patron, there is no coverage to establish notability for this charity. I can find scant evidence to even verify the work they do (under either name). StarM 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plattmakers[edit]

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

This is a private website. Its just an abusion for advertising it. Someone202102 (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not referenced, also per nom. versacespace talk to me 02:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like no significant coverage online. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 13:06, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Podhorzer[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass GNG. Sources are not about him, just passing quotes from him in broader refernce to AFL CIO. Or are just PR bumpf from the AFL CIO website. Pipsally (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Thanks BubblySnow 💬 17:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. or at least dradtify. Ignoring the initial comment, the position is in practice a notable one in Americna politics. DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THe office might be notable, but that doesn't make the office holder notable.Pipsally (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Jewish guy with serious influence, subject of non-trivial sources. --2A00:CA8:A1F:B0AE:E5A2:53BA:7936:F860 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm unable to find enough sources to meet WP:SIGCOV, most are quoting the individual or brief mentions. Unless there's a policy that states that his position establishes notability, doesn't appear to meet GNG. Redoryxx (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably notable without it, but I'd say the TIME article nudges him over the top. —Morning star (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced comments moved from top of page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complainer Pipsally is clearly disingenuous in invoking on Feb 8th the notoriety requirement, right after seeing an extensive article in Time.com, released on Feb. 4th. Time magazine is one of the mainstays of American press, established in 1923 and with print circulation of over 2 million. Indeed, the article sorely needs an update beyond 2012 references and should be expanded. So just say that, by calling it a stub or otherwise drawing attention to it, rather than launching this feeble and likely politically motivated attempt to have it deleted. Telling is the fact that the second voice for deletion, user BubblySnow, is labeled at a sockpuppet of a banned user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:47D0:7660:C872:3760:781C:AB5A (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t delete this page. Podhorzer is one of the greatest heroes of all time. He saved democracy in the US per the recent Time magazine article. His contributions should be celebrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.39.208 (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, do not delete this post. I write this in relation to an article that drove me to look Mr. Podhorzer up. It is in the Feb 15th, 2021 (needs verification) issue of Time magazine which places Mr. Podhorzer as the "architect" of a systematic strategy to maintain democracy in the United States, this in the face of the anti-democratic implications of the existence of Donald Trump. So if anything, he is a national hero. In fact, while reading the article the name that came to mind was that of Paul Revere, shouting his legendary warning about the British.

So please, please, do not delete this post. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4002:AFD0:1D89:A946:A885:FEBD (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 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 No consensus. After DiamondRemley39 improved the article, it was not challenged by anyone. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fierce Conversations[edit]

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

promotional and does not appear to meet NBOOK DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - fails WP:NBOOK, and I could find no coverage in independent sources (~~book reviews absolutely do not count, as they are frequently done for compensation~~). ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course some book reviews count towards book notability... Per book notability guidelines. See: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-670-03124-5 DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I must have forgotten/not checked new guidance on this. Struck from above. My opinion is unchanged nonetheless, that it doesn't appear to meet our notability standards. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 14:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Get fierce or get ready to fail." Lisa Earle McLeod.Buffalo News; Buffalo, N.Y. [Buffalo, N.Y]03 July 2010: C.3. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep as meets NBOOK with critical reviews and bestseller list appearances. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WSJ bestseller listings cited. Multiple reviews cited. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:41, 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cross International[edit]

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

A charity with ??? notability. Generic name impedes the search for sources, leading to red herrings and other organizations that don't seem to be related to this one. The original article author (circa 2009) clearly SPA, also redirected their user name to this article for some reason? Pretty sure this was made as advertising, and there hasn't been enough interest or sourcing to actually improve it over the years. If anyone has some practical advice to improve this article, I'd be happy to fix it up, but if TNT is required, I ought to call in the pros. Estheim (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell whether or not this is notable. It claims to have 46 projects in 12 countries, which might be sufficient to make it notable. On the other hand, there are no outgoing links and the organisation's website is very non-specific as to what it is doing. I would be much happier if there were an indication of turnover or something like that to demonstrate its size. If large, it probably would be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate international charity, not a commercial/spam operation. Just look at their YouTube channel and their excellent Charity Navigator and BBB ratings. The Wikidata page's Identifiers has more useful info. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 17:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Kennedy (businessman)[edit]

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

He does not meet notability requirements and there are no independent RS sources. Deltagammaz (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Deltagammaz (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Deltagammaz (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A case of WP:BEFORE. A quick search of "Brendan Kennedy cannabis" shows plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. AfD is not clean-up, and nominators should at least do a modicum of research. Just because all the sources are not in the article, this is not a valid basis for nomination. Edwardx (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a Times feature already in the article, add to that the article in Fortune. Googling reveals more coverage of him; not all of it reliable, of course, but I'd say he meets WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:54, 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 no consensus. There is some coverage here which could just about be sufficient for GNG, but there simply doesn't look like there is appetite for discussion here which will lead to a clear consensus. Fenix down (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Bakke[edit]

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

PROD contested with the wording: "10 appearances for a top, top club and then national cup final as well - deleting this via PROD would be complete folly" Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG; unevidenced subjective opinions that a club is "top,top" are irrelevant. Tromsø finished 10th of 12 teams in 1991 (relegation play-off) and 8th of 12 in 1992. They were part-timers in a part-time league. In no sense whatsoever were they a "top, top club". Bakke made a handful of appearances about 30 years ago, mostly as a late substitute. He was a goldsmith by trade, and played most of his football in the lower divisions. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a two page spread about him and a couple of articles where he is the main subject but about slightly more routine things here and here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Spiderone. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liv Hansen[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have had any significant/major roles, lacks entirely in meaningful coverage, so fails WP:NACTOR, her career as a photographer is also unremarkable. CUPIDICAE💕 18:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of her acting credits from IMDb are "uncredited" one-offs. She was even in a Harry Potter movie, but as a generic "witch". Mostly bit parts. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant roles that would lead to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Air Conditioning Contractors of America[edit]

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

This article has been tagged with a notability template for nearly 11 years now, and a search on Google gave me PR or namedrops. The lack of WP:SIRS-passing coverage indicates a failure of WP:NORG. Java Hurricane 18:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 18:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 18:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, I was going to nominate this article a while ago but never got around to it. Nothing to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent secondary sources found, so not notable. (btw, notability tag for 11 years? Guess it really is overdue.) --LordPeterII (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a good faith search, but could not find anything besides WP:PROMO and their own internal newsletter. Shushugah (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How has this been here so long? Unless Daft Punk chooses this as the title of their comeback album, this article title is never going to be notable, IMHO. A search finds only trivial mentions, along with the confusingly named Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association ( SMACNA ) . Possibly (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Darrell Castle 2016 presidential campaign. Per Bearcat's argument re: NPOL, and Hut 8.5's assertion about how minor the party is, and no solid arguments refuting those, I find a reasonable consensus to not have a standalone. Per Hut's suggestion that he might be covered briefly at Darrell Castle 2016 presidential campaign, I am redirecting as a WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bradley (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has run for political office several times, has lost every race. Most refs are by summaries of candidates or election results, only one WP:RS about the candidate himself, yet hardly anything substantive mentioned in it.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nominee of a national political party for vice-president, it is very likely that a sufficient number of decent sources exist.--User:Namiba 20:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a fringe party's candidate for vice-president is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to get over WP:GNG on their sourcing — but per WP:MUSTBESOURCES, we do not keep an article just because somebody says they assume that quality sources probably exist: we only take into consideration sources that we know to exist because somebody has found and shown them. Bearcat (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being on the presidential ticket of a minor political party doesn't indicate that sources will exist to satisfy the GNG, and in this case there are very few usable sources at all. [7] seems to be as good as it gets. He can be covered briefly in Darrell Castle 2016 presidential campaign. Hut 8.5 13:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Constitution Party vice pres. nominee, was a national party candidate who appeared on the ballot in multiple states. Wikipedia should be used as a reference point. Kingofthedead (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIRCULAR Wikipedia should never ever be used as a reference point.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interestingly appears to fail WP:GNG after a cursory before search. I have no problem if the information gets merged elsewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 13:11, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crede Bailey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

October 2020 AfD closed as no consensus, so I am re-nominating the page after over three months. As I pointed out in my first nomination, the position of "White House Chief Security Officer" certainly fails to meet WP:NPOL. Additionally, the subject of the page still fails WP:SIGCOV, which mandates that sources must address the topic directly and in detail and include more than a trivial mention. KidAd talk 01:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every one who is employed at the White House and supervises at least 2 other people is notable. That is pretty much where we would have to draw the line of notability to show that Bailey is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to White House COVID-19 outbreak, which appears to be his locus of notability. The consequent amputation of his leg can be noted in the severity parameter there. BD2412 T 19:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Not much else happened for him to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage that I could find -- which says a lot, given the large, disproportionate amounts of media attention paid to other people in the Trump administration. I'm not sure a redirect is needed, either, given how many people in the White House got COVID. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at the original AfD. Nothing has changed. I do not support a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 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 delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bouloussou Satyanarayanamourty[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL and appears to have been written by a relative. The Sources are 1) a non-specific citing of land records by the regional government; 2) the Proceedings of the Indian Science Congress (1952), which is in relation to his brother (Bulusu Jaganadha Sastry; who's notability is also not clear) being a member of the Indian Science Congress and even that is just listing him as a member; 3) is his grandson's (and apparently the author of this article's) Mahindra University faculty profile; and 4) a non-specific citing of the subject's death certificate GPL93 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Zoozaz1 talk 19:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any grounds for a claim of notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Somewhat snowy. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Public School,[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable primary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from having a comma at the end of the article title (???) and being created by an SPI, utterly utterly unnotable. ser! (chat to me). 17:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NORG. Java Hurricane 18:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ser!. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete a non-notable school that fails WP:NORG, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete This is clearly not a notable school from the research I did and the delete votes of other. Since I don't see that changing I suggest it be snow deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable school, hardly any RS’s.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed to establish WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 15:28, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 15:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love Odd[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Lacks sources, and the Armenian version of the article contains only one ref, which is broken. I can find no other sources. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 15:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Request withdrawn[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 15:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Rondell[edit]

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

Working stunt man, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and with only a single potentially significant role, doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep / Suspicious nomination: Here we go again. This editor previously nominated two of my articles (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jan_D'Arcy and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annette_McCarthy), both of which were closed as Keep. I didn't mind those noms but the editor then started making weird and untrue accusations about me closing AFD discussions on another user's talk page. I told admin User:Daniel about this and said I was willing to let it drop but was worried they might nominate further articles I created to retaliate. And here we are. Not one but TWO more articles (also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Davenport (actor)) nominated by the SAME user. Based on this user's previous actions and comments, I consider this nomination and any more on my articles more than highly suspect.-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just in response to the personal attack above. How many of your articles have I reviewed, and marked passed as reviewed? Quite a few more than I've had issues with, if you bothered to look before making a baseless accusation. Even those which have been sent to AfD by other Reviewers, before you worked to improve the articles, like Ellen McElduff. Other of your articles, I've had to request revdel on, due to copyright violations (like Gary Hershberger), and have not commented on the notability of. I simply review your articles as they come up in the queue, and when one with questionable comes along, I take appropriate action. Knowing that you will object to what should be handled through a prod, I bring them to AfD. Just today, I approved 2 of your other articles as passing review. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Um, it wasn't a personal attack, the personal attack was when you made weird and untrue accusations about me on another user's talk page! Nice dig about the copyvio del - showing further proof you have animosity towards me. Today you nominated 2 more articles within less than three minutes of each other, not nearly enough time to review and read all page references and external links and decide on the notability of two people, let alone perform detailed searches. I said nothing to you about those first two noms, you're the one who started contention and tried to stir up trouble by making those accusations on another user's page. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already voted keep above but here are my reasons based on subject of article. His role on Twin Peaks should be enough for cult status, and his roles in TP, 24, and many other shows should be enough for WP:NACTOR. I'm not sure if there's a criteria for stuntmen, but all his stunt credits AND work as a stunt co-ordinator in major TV shows and movie franchises over 40 years, along with sourcing, should be enough for WP:GNG. Note: I hope others will agree with my reasons and vote to keep, but if not requesting draftify in advance as am supposed to be on a WikiBreak and probably won't have time to do more work on article or find more sourcing before this closes. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some additional sources to article about film/television roles, including recent work on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone here is looking for more sources, note that he is credited professionally under at least four name variations (maybe more) over a forty-year career: "Erik Rondell", "Eric Rondell", "Erick Rondell", "Erik L. Rondell". -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: very suspicious nomination. versacespace talk to me 02:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By checking out the context of article and sources, notability will be established clearly.Fatzaof (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though a C- or D-list actor, the subject of the article is clearly an A-list stuntman. KidAd • SPEAK 06:30, 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. Sandstein 11:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

František Bohdal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable minor local factory and municipal functionary. All sources in the article are either unreliable (Rudé právo - national communist party paper, Jihočeská Pravda - local party paper etc.), or do not mention the article subject at all (Osteuropa auf dem Weg zur Marktwirtschaft). Previous AfD closed as no consensus, because participants were not able to judge reliability of the Czech language sources. Pavlor (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the author of the article: In my opinion, there was no reason for AfD. On the contrary, a source was added that dates back to the 1990s, when Czechoslovakia was no longer a totalitarian state. The source proves that the procedures that František Bohdal invented and implemented were used long after. I cannot agree with the subjective opinion of the petitioner of the deletion. František Bohdal was awarded the state award by the President of the Republic several times. The state award also had to be approved by the government. Some sources come from the time of totalitarianism, but propaganda information was filtered from them and they only describe the facts (when he worked in which department, what awards he received, what procedures he invented). I believe that a lot of information should be preserved, because it also appears on the site of the factory on czWikipedia. Thanks to František Bohdal, on whom the interest of the press at the time was focused in the 1950s and 1980s, various technological processes in the plant can be mapped. I'm in favor of keeping the article.--Kopal.jiri (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does that source published after 1989 at least mention the article subject? As of the state award, it was awarded to a collective of workers not to the article subject individually. Pavlor (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You probably do not understand the issue or deliberately misrepresent it. For each award, it is written whether it was awarded directly to Bohdal or whether it was awarded to a collective (either a paper mill collective or a narrower collective, which he headed). No one is deceived here, and there are also pictures taken from the archives of the office of the President of the Republic, which mention František Bohdal directly. From your text it is clear that you may not even read article and suggest you to delete it.--Kopal.jiri (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two notable awards (Order of Victorious February, Order of the Republic), both were awarded to a collective of workers. However, my main issue are sources. If the best source you can provide (Osteuropa auf dem Weg zur Marktwirtschaft), doesn´t mention the article subject at all (at least searching in the Google Books preview), there are literally no sources one can use to write an article. Pavlor (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel qualified to decide which state award is more important than another. These are all state decorations awarded by the President of the Republic at the suggestion of the government. That is why I consider them just as important.--Kopal.jiri (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the government of Czechoslovakia had its own ranking of which state awards were more important than others. No, it's not for us to decide that, but I assume that the government had its own plan for deciding which award to give to Gustáv Husák and which award to give to the manager of a paper mill. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there was a prescription that determined the order in which they were worn, ranging from rarer to less rare. I just wanted to say that it was always a state award, which automatically makes them significant awards.--Kopal.jiri (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering that all the sources provided are in Czech, one might expect that a notable Czech person would be the subject of an article in the Czech Wikipedia. While cs:František Bohdal exists, it's about a novelist/poet/playwright with the same name. I don't see any evidence that the Czech Wikipedia includes an article about the paper mill manager František Bohdal; apparently they cover him in the article about the factory where he worked, cs:JIP - Papírny Větřní. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because an award is from a national government does not mean that it is significant enough to pass notability standards, especially collective awards. I agree with Metropolitan90 rationale as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:49, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandla Maseko[edit]

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

Notability primary relies on a expected feat of the subject that did not push through. He was winner of a commercial campaign which involves sending the winners to space. The subject was touted to be the would-be first Black African in space but the his mission was essentially cancelled after the XCOR Aerospace folded in 2017.

The question is does the subject satisfy at least WP:GNG? He has received significant coverage from several African WP:RS or even western sources such as the CNN and The Guardian. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Notable per the specific articles about him in publications like the Guardian, which weren't just when the competition was awarded, but also when he died. Pinging @Pigsonthewing: who also helped start this article a few years back. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike Peel. Notability does not diminish with time. Meets GNG. quite why anyone would make such a nomination, when they themselves say "He has received significant coverage from several African WP:RS or even western sources such as the CNN and The Guardian." is beyond me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was notable at one time, and that's permanent, I believe.PopePompus (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that she's notable... for being covered by media on account of her self-promotion. Oh well. Sandstein 12:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Carson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted on July 2018 for violating the Rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy (advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content).

It has been rewritten in June 2020, but still without any relevant nor encyclopedic content (a self-published book is not enough).

This article is basically a self-promoting page about a girl who dreamt to be an astronaut, and her dad had enough money to try to realize her dream. They tried to sell the image of her being an astronaut on training for an official mission to Mars (source 1, source 2, source 3), but later the uncorrelation with NASA was revealed and covered multiple times by the media (source 1, source 2, source 3).

So, since this article is basically about a girl who attended some cool summer camps with the "space" word in it (like thousands of other people in the world) and studying astrobiology (like millions of people in this world), I think that it should be deleted in respect of the rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, event if it meets the WP:GNG, because nothing in this article is relevant or encyclopedic content.

PS: Before voting, just take a look at the revision history of the page to see what a mess this article is. It also shows that some users are not super partes in their stances and there might be some kind of collaboration with the subject of the article itself (possibily violating the WP:COI). Theory made probable by the fact that during the first cancellation a former Wikipedia admin declared himself ready to resign in case of deletion. An oversized reaction, to say the least. --Darius Alnex (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (grudgingly), whilst she is not notable in the sense of having done or experienced anything particularly exceptional, she has received a truly exceptional amount of coverage - which is the crux of the general notability guidelines. COI issues can be addressed without deleting. --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is overly promotional bunk that does not belong on Wikipedia. She is not known for attending space camp a lot of times, or visitng a lot of space centers, outside of her own mind and the press releases her family has churned out. Wikipedia is not a platform for every young person';s press releases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMHO, Rule 4/WP:PROMO would only apply if the content of the article was not thoroughly backed up by sources. The subject meets GNG and has had coverage over an extended period (2014-2020). There are few things in this article that are not widely covered in a variety of sources. Does the page have issues? Yes. But should it be deleted? No. Samsmachado (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This user, as shown in the revision history of the article in question, its probably affiliated with the subject of the article itself, so IMHO his vote should not be taken into consideration.--Darius Alnex (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Got any proof of that? It seems rather unlikely that a Canadian undergrad who specializes in Canadian feminist theater -- and is conscientious enough to disclose a COI about a medical condition -- is affiliated with an aspiring astronaut from Louisiana. Please see WP:AGF. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: This user created the page from zero after the first deletion in June 2020 (why?), then added awards and filmography on July 2020 (very local awards and very specific tv appareances), then corrected her father's name on February 2021, and heavily fought trough all the deletion attempts. Like you said, since we're not speaking about Billie Eilish, it's a strange connection for a Canadian undegrad to have with a Louisiana astronaut wannabe. Hard to believe that some WP:COI is not happening here. --Darius Alnex (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: This display of bad faith upsets me. I have no COI here and would declare it if I did. I simply hate to see the accomplishments of young women be excluded from Wikipedia because of the bias of older men (the majority of wiki editors) against young women. Her father's name was spelled differently barely a paragraph apart, so I changed it after googling which one was correct. I added awards and TV appearences because that is something I do standardly in my work on articles about women in theatre. I have created many pages about total strangers, many of whom you'd have stronger ground at arguing a COI for (ie. being in the same country). I had simply seen coverage of Carson appearing on my newsfeed and thought 'that's a cool young woman who should be covered on Wikipedia'. Samsmachado (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: If the person in question was called Alex Carson it would have been the same. "I simply hate to see the accomplishments of young women be excluded from Wikipedia"... which accomplisments? She did nothing. She paid to attend space camps and her dad paid some blogs to spoke about her. Is this encyclopedic material? If you think so, vote "Keep". I don't think it's enough, and that's why I applied the page for the deletion. About the allegations, your behavior (and the one of another user, also Canadian) was suspicious, and it was worth pointing it out to the community. After that, vox populi vox dei. The community will decide what to do. --Darius Alnex (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment: You are welcome to launch a formal investigation into my alleged COI; you will find I have none. Otherwise, this verges on harassment. I can appreciate that you do not think her achievements are enough. Plenty of people shared your opinion in the previous AFD and you are free to think as you will. However, more people (or at least people with stronger or more policy-informed arguments) decided she was encyclopedic content less than a year ago. Samsmachado (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was in Newsweek and a CBS News story, enough to be notable, but I agree she just barely attains notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There seems to be a committed effort by otherwise-infrequent editors to try to debunk or delete this article, despite it being well sourced. She might be notable only because of self-promotion, but she is notable. Like it or not, reliable sources have reported on her. pburka (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To clarify my position, I do most of my edits without logging in, since I'm not interested in having a career as a Wikipedia editor. And they're usually made to correct vandalized articles that I'm reading. I don't have anything personal against the subject of the article, since I'm not even from the same continent of her. I'm just an astronomy enthusiast who doesn't think that a wannabe astronaut should have a Wikipedia page until it actually became an astronaut, in accordance with the WP:TOOSOON policy. --Darius Alnex (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anything is too soon, it's this nomination. This article was already debated and kept in July and again in August. What has changes in the last 6 months to merit yet another discussion? pburka (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That I found a probable WP:COI violation. Most of the subject of the article appearences seems to be paid posts on blogs, so it's not unlikely that a couple of Wikipedia editors (and back in the days a former admin of Wikipedia) could have been paid to keep the page alive. I do realize that the "evidences" are circumstantial, but I think that this is a topic the community of Wikipedia has the right to discuss. Besides the fact that the entire article is no way near to have any encyclopedic interest. --Darius Alnex (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - These weak accusations might be a bit more credible if they weren't coming from a WP:SPA. Is a reddit or 4chan forum coordinating this? pburka (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        My edit history speaks for myself and it's coherent with my previous message (you can edit vandalized pages without logging in, you cannot delete one without logging in). Also, I'm not an English speaker, so you can find most of my edits on the Italian Wikipedia. If reddit or 4chan was involved you would have seen more than 3 "delete" messages. I just don't think that a wannabe astronaut has the right to have a page on an online encyclopedia and IMHO it's an offense to all the people who actually works at NASA, who are real scientists and have really achieved something. That's why I applied the page for the deletion. --Darius Alnex (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your personal opinion about who has the right to have a page on an online encyclopedia and offended feelings are not policy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy gave me the power to launch the deletion process. The voting will decide if the article is encyclopedic or not. Also none of the example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT matches what I said. I started the deletion process because IMHO there's nothing encyclopedic in someone who tries to become an astronaut (especially if the sources seems to be paid posts). Or at least this is the idea that I have of "encyclopedia". And in the first deletion attempt it was the idea of the majority of the people. --Darius Alnex (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        "It isn't encyclopedic" and "AfD is a vote between the majority of the people" are also examples of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; it would be a good idea to read that page so you do not produce several more. You are free to nominate an article for deletion. Others are free to say that you have not provided a policy-based reason to delete an article, and in fact have inadvertently provided one to keep it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment The first AfD was back in 2018 (also initiated by the current nom), and the article has been rewritten with better sourced since then, as evidenced by comments and "keep" conclusions at AfDs 2 and 3. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is still largely promotional content that does not have a place here. Sources are largely routine appearances and interviews of her own self-advocacy, not encyclopedic content. She's garnered herself an over-the-top resume but not notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The entire argument here seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Per above, the subject passes GNG, and just because you don't like that the coverage exists doesn't change the fact that it does. Even your stated rationale for non-notability -- that the NASA stuff was "revealed and covered many times by the media" -- is itself a demonstration of GNG.

For that matter, the page doesn't even read as particularly promotional. The bulk of it is objective facts, and a significant portion is dedicated to the aforementioned debunking of the NASA branding. That is not something a promotional piece or press release would include.

(I have no affiliation with the subject of this article and indeed had never heard of her until several hours ago -- I trust nobody will twist those words into "well, you've never heard of her, obviously she isn't notable." If you check my edit history, what you will find is a great deal of slashed promotional writing.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was closed as Keep twice last year. What has changed since then? Per the sourcing in the article and the explanations in the other 2 AfDs, WP:SIGCOV is met. Concerns of PROMO and COI can be fixed through editing. TJMSmith (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, given there is WP:SIGCOV. Also, WP:DINC, and nothing seems significantly different in terms of notability since the last AfD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one would have thought 37 references would be enough (CBS, Newsweek, The Independent, ...). Oculi (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she may have an unusual claim to notability, but clearly meets WP:BASIC Redoryxx (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think what she has done is of great importance, but the article clearly establishes Wikipedia notability. I don't understand the comment that "nothing in this article is relevant or encyclopedic content". The content is clearly relevant to the subject; it describes what she has done. Whether or not it's "encyclopidic" is a judgement call, but I don't think it clearly violates WP:PROMOTION. PopePompus (talk) 02:54, 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 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) 21:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EMS Software[edit]

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

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. The references are either primary sources or non-notable listings for awards or announcements. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:19, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Stone (sculptor)[edit]

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

No WP:SIRS to meet WP:GNG. Fails NARTIST. I was able to verify one museum collection [8] though I'm unsure if this would even qualify for what we think of as a museum collection, as the "The permanent collection is constituted by a selection of works of Ksenia Milicevic realized between 1984 and 1998. Sculptures of Christopher Stone and Gerard Lartigue." Furthermore, a number of the exhibitions and awards are in User:Theredproject/Predatory Exhibitions and Vanity Galleries Theredproject (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too many instances of fake/vanity/fabricated coverage. Possibly (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly promotional. Note the connection to the Art Resilience Movement, who have been promoting their movement on Wikipedia in articles like Resilience in art and Ksenia Milicevic. Vexations (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding anything to substantiate that this is a notable artist. The article seems like a promotional effort to construct a narrative that this is an artist of note via predatory exhibit credentials and a questionable museum collection. Fails criteria for WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Lack of reliable sources and doesn't meet criteria for WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDreamBoat (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quartz (musician)[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage about this DJ in reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia is not a Discogs mirror. Complete lack of online presence, which is unusual for an internet-era DJ. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. versacespace talk to me 02:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Singh Chandel[edit]

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

not sure how this guy meets NPOL, aside from the fact that "State Co Convenor" doesn't appear to be an elected position, he basically runs the IT & social media of a party, which is also not an elected position, just a standard office type job. There's no coverage to meet GNG either. CUPIDICAE💕 14:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite small and not notable at all. The account that made this article itself is called ankitchandelbjp, smells like WP:Coi, but can't be sure. Regardless, sources mentioned are no very well known, they also don't cover the person-in-question. The information provided is also not notable, again. Even googling the person in question hasn't shown any new information about the person. In my opinion enough coverage of the subject does not exist, stringent mentions of independent and well-known sources per WP:BLP is not shown. No other option than to delete. SenatorLEVI 15:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unelected politician; fails WP:NPOL and little if any, coverage. Eagleash (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable party functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IT/social media guy for a political party is not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - smells badly of COI and I could find no evidence of significant coverage in sources independent of the subject Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Biography notability guidelines not meet & notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Smells like WP:COI, barely any coverage as well as independent articles about the person. SenatorLEVI 04:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls well short of NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of nobility. vanity article. RationalPuff (talk) 15:42, 26 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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did You[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG with insufficient in-depth discussion in sources. The edm.com and weraveyou.com pieces look like paid promotion. The celebmix.com piece was written by "Heiko" who does not appear to be a music critic. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because i thought that a charting single from two artists that are currently on major labels (one of them sold more than 60 milion singles in the US only) was relevant. The edm.com and weraveyou.com pieces don't look like paid promotion to me. They are known professional blogs specialized on the genre of the artist that made the song, that assumption looks gratuitous to me. What are you basing that on?--Sayatek down (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources from very well known magazines like Billboard and HotNewHipHop talking about the song. So right now It doesn't fail WP:NSONG with insufficient in-depth discussion in sources.--Sayatek down (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another Billboard source, showing his Billboard chart position--Sayatek down (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for starting a standard deletion discussion. This article should be speedily deleted because it was created by a sockpuppet of banned User:Giubbotto non ortodosso. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why you keep saying things that are nowhere to be found in the truth dude?--Sayatek down (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nada Herman-Witkamp[edit]

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

No WP:RS to satisfy GNG or NARTIST. Additionally, her exhibitions listed are in User:Theredproject/Predatory Exhibitions and Vanity Galleries. Theredproject (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no independent recognition of her work. For example, ""Many of these galleries cite Nada Herman as one of their most in-demand artists.", sourced by two galleries, is just advertising and has been removed. GNG fail. Possibly (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding any indication that this is a notable artist whose credentials match our criteria for WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Written in a non-encyclopedic promtional tone which does not help. Netherzone (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with what's already been said. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, looks like some copyright issues as well if we look at the artist's page. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST, have been unable to find any wikinotable galleries/museums that hold any of this artist's work, was part of an exhibition with father and grandfather at Manly Art Gallery and Museum (here) but this is not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, As per above doesn't meet WP:NARTIST. Hulatam (talk) 09:21, 24 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 15:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shop Studios New York City[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. No WP:SIRS. The extended bio is a coatrack of Jacques Rosas which was apparently previously speedy deleted for PROMO as part of a sock farm. Theredproject (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice. Massively promotional. Massively not notable. I trimmed the coatrack items. Possibly (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This organization does not meet WP:NCORP criteria nor WP:GNG. It seems like a promotional effort to possibly use WP as an advertising venue. Netherzone (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails in meeting WP:NCORP. Hulatam (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Niger banda (talk) 09:25, 24 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 Princess Eugenie#Marriage and family. For now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August Brooksbank[edit]

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

I've attempted to redirect this however it's been contested. I have no doubt this person is notable however there isn't enough for a standalone article. This is a 13 day old infant and should be redirected and merged into the parent article until such a time there is independent notability.also as a matter of respect and basic decency, it seems wildly inappropriate to have such an article on a 13 day old child CUPIDICAE💕 14:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his mother's article at Princess Eugenie#Marriage and family. As the subject is an infant, there is nothing to say about him that can't be covered just as well in the article about his mother. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above reasoning + the fact that the infant is days old, untitled, etc. If Brooksbank eventually meets independent notability, a page can easily be created for the then.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – The likely intent of his parents is for him to avoid undue public attention by eschewing any public role. Thus, notable accomplishments reported on by the media are unlikely, especially in the near term. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Eugenie#Marriage and family as he is a viable search term. This is article is WP:BLP1E (the event being his birth). Also consider WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE as he is an infant and currently untitled. TJMSmith (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Eugenie#Marriage and family. Few babies born to royal families are notable purely for existing unless they are next in line for a crown. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per all above redirect to Princess Eugenie#Marriage and family. Hulatam (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. A babe-in-arms is not a notable figure, no matter the parents. This article will one day have reason to exist as a stand-alone piece. Now is not that time. WP:RECENTISM seems in play here: there really is no rush to create a page. doktorb _words^deeds 00:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
((R with possibilities)) per arguments above. — The Great Redirector 11:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I fully support the arguments made above. He may one day merit an article, but at the moment coverage on his mother's article is sufficient. Dunarc (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Eugenie#Marriage and family. He might be notable but there's not anything about it him that cannot be covered on his mother's article at this point. As he grows up, if he ends up living a public life like his cousins Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall then we can restore this page as a separate article. Keivan.f^Talk 04:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princess Eugenie#Marriage and family for the same reasons as everyone above. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 16:53, 28 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) 14:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

!T.O.O.H.![edit]

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Czech avantgarde/progressive death metal band. They are awesome, but unfortunately, they are not notable. The article does not have any reliable sources (the Allmusic page which would be the sole reliable one, is just a track listing and user reviews which are no support for notability). Searching is difficult due to the band name (Google always recommends "tooth band"), so I tried with a few of their albums. Couldn't find anything besides the usual suspects (databases, youtube videos, streaming links, download links, retail sites and blogs). Totally underground band which hasn't achieved any reliable coverage. The sourcing isn't any better on the other wikis either. Maybe there are print coverage but I can't track them down. As always, I am happy to be proven wrong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wonder if the odd punctuation of their name leads to inaccurate web searches. Also beware of stuff related to Tooh (song). For the Czech band, they have some basic entries at not-so-reliable genre sites like Metal Archives and an empty page at AllMusic, and that's about it. No reliable coverage of the band's history or pro reviews of any albums. They're underground by choice, but too underground to qualify for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that they have three album articles as well, all with unreliable sources or none at all: Z vyšší vůle, Pod vládou biče, Řád a trest. I will boldly redirect all three to the band's article in the event that it happens to survive this AfD. The album articles are even less supportable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the albums got redirected. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was by me. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchy Frog[edit]

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

This article does not meet the WP:GNG. It can only be sourced to primary sources or other sources sponsored by the creators, which starts to cross the line into WP:NOTPROMO. Cannot find significant coverage in reliable third party sources, outside of passing mentions. Jontesta (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Monty Python is over 50 years old now and really doesn't need any promotional assistance from Wikipedia. And it gets plenty regardless from our regular use of spam, trout and silly arguments. Anyway, there's plenty of coverage in the numerous books about Python including Monty Python: From the Flying Circus to Spamalot and Monty Python's Flying Circus – An Utterly Complete, Thoroughly Unillustrated, Absolutely Unauthorized Guide to Possibly All the References. And there's naturally lots of spillover. Harry Potter pinched its chocolate frog and cockroach clusters from the sketch and people have actually made these, as documented in Reading Harry Potter and the like. There's also a record label which takes its name from the sketch too. When a topic is so influential, it is not reasonable to delete the original. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary to Monty Python sketches (which is a very sad list at this point). I am seeing many mentions in passing but no in-depth coverage/analysis to warrant keeping this as a stand-alone article (but ping me if such sources are found so I can reconsider my vote). PS. After merge, disambiguate the topic between the sketch and the label, or course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and garnish with larks' vomit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Newyorkbrad, Har har. Given that WP:AFDNOTAVOTE, how about you append a policy-based rationale to this comment? :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find this sort of "episodes and characters" AfD against longstanding articles about iconic shows to be demoralizing and unproductive. The encyclopedia is not bettered by stripping out valued content in this way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Also concur with NYB about the value of this sort of AfD -- what's the goal here, to delete an article older than some editors about massively influential popular culture because "I haven't heard of it, and in theory it could be promotional for a show that stopped airing in 1974"? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vaticidalprophet, Please, no straw man arguments. Nobody said this should be deleted because one hasn't heard of it, nor that it is promotional. Concern has been raised that there are no sources providing in-depth (non-trivial) coverage of this sketch as required by GNG. And so far we are still waiting for this policy-based critique to be rebutted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew quoted the existence of in-depth non-trivial coverage in reliable published sources, which was why my !vote was 'per' him. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue that this actually does meet WP:GNG (if I had paid for an argument). This is one of the favorite sketches from their early days when there was little media coverage of BBC programmes and only DARPA had the internet. It is sufficiently iconic that it only needs passing mentions to conjure up remembrance among many. Houston Chronicle [9] described upcoming performances of "some of their best-loved sketches - including the "dead parrot" and the "crunchy frog" skits from their heyday" and Terry Jones' obit in Rolling Stone [10] invokes it with a simple "in Monty Python’s box of chocolates, he was always the crunchy frog".

But beyond those hat tips for fans, the Chronicle of Higher Education [11] references an academic paper on the difficulty of translating Crunchy Frog sketch to Polish. And in the NY Times on April 18, 1976 [12] (sorry, subscribers only) an entire paragraph is devoted to describing every aspect of the sketch in a detailed story of the Pythons, to highlight why one should avoid buying products in their "nonsense world." LizardJr8 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to stop the allowance of things just because they are said to be "well known" when there is no actual show of reliable source coverage of the matter. Wikipedia also does not have a grandfather clause, and in the early wild west days of Wikipedia there was no regulation of article creation, so we need to stop allowing length of existence as an argument to keep an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert. "Well known" is a subjective idea. Wikipedia is based on significant coverage and there are no sources that meet that. Even for the licensed Monty Python guide, Notability has a requirement for independent sources. A merge would be acceptable if there is a suitable target. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with or without merge) A google book search for {"Monty Python" -wikipedia} find a pleather of hits a Google book search for {"Crunchy Frog Monty Python" -wikipedia} does not even find a enough to consider as minor mentions. A Google book search for {"Trade Description Act Monty Python" -wikipedia} find lots of hits so possibly a rename to Trade Description Act leaving a redirect. To me it is clear that "Crunchy Frog" is not notable, if the skit is notable the Wikipedia article should be Trade Description Act as supported by references. (which would need to address the redirect to Trade Descriptions Act 1968) Jeepday (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slightly confusing !vote -- it's nominally a delete, but the rationale appears to be that the article has the wrong title ("Trade Description Act" simply being the on-paper name for "the crunchy frog skit"). What merge would be performed? Trade Descriptions Act 1968 is, as you note, on an entirely unrelated topic except for the matter of inspiring the skit's shape. This sounds like a WP:RM-post-AfD matter. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is where symantics gets the better of people. Technically is there enough to meet gng? Probably not, as although there is multiple coverage none of it is SIGCOV. However the impact of the sketch cannot be questioned outside of wiki rules as being notable, as per argument provided by the LizardJr8. The problem is that Television coverage in press or books was hardly done prior to the 1980s other than listings, and we are judging evidence based on the modern world. I would argue that if the article is kept it should be changed to Trade Descriptions Act (Crunchy Frog) or Crunchy Frog (Trades Description Act). I have raised this issue on the Wikipedia Notability project on Television.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Grossly inaccurate if not outright false nomination statement. The assertion that the subject "can only be sourced to primary sources or other sources sponsored by the creator" is palpably ridiculous and easily refuted; it's clear that none of the advocates of deletion bothered to do a minimally adequate WP:BEFORE effort. Just clicking on the NYTimes link in the AFD header immediately turns up a relatively lengthy 1976 piece which selects the sketch as a paradigm of Pythonesque humor and sets it out in detail, with comments. A basic Gscholar search turns up dozens of references, ranging from a statistics text to a scholarly book on classical music which describes one of Offenbach's works as "the unwanted crunchy frog in the box of operatic chocolates." Other Gsearches turn up all sorts of places and entities named "Crunchy Frog," all taking the name after the sketch was widely known, in homage to it, clearly demonstrating real-world impact. The several uninformed delete comments serve mainly to show the level of intellectual sloth that pervades AFD these days, an corrosive opposition to knowledge that increasingly damages this encyclopedia day upon day upon day. So, once again, strong keep (and don't frost with glucose! This nonsensical proposal should not be sugarcoated!) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as "merge", but with a note that I would relist instead if challenged. That has now happened, and so I am doing this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew. ser! (chat to me). 14:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not totally sold on the sources presented, but am running into a lot of paywalls and offline newspaper articles, so I can't say for certain what's out there. Therefore, this is neither a !vote to keep nor delete. (Maybe merging is the best solution.) However, the idea that Monty Python is using Wikipedia to self-promote is patently ridiculous. Monty Python is one of the most well-known comedy groups in the world. They do not need to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, and if Wikipedia did not exist they would not vanish into obscurity. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a seminal skit from a seminal TV show by a seminal comedy troupe. It also was an important cut in one of the Pythons' most popular comedy albums ("Monty Python's Instant Record Collection"). I hope that four weeks from now I'm not met by the "Spring Surprise" that the article has been deleted. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If its cut out of Wikipedia blame the lumberjack. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the best known Python sketches – it was mentioned by John Cleese as one of his personal favourites when they reunited for a show in 2013 – and it has entered the popular culture. It pops up in a review of John Updike's Witches of Eastwick, was the inspiration for a Danish indie label and has been covered in reference works such as Monty Python's Flying Circus – An Utterly Complete, Thoroughly Unillustrated, Absolutely Unauthorized Guide to Possibly All the References where it's compared to Jonathan Swift's The Lady's Dressing Room (not making that up).-- P-K3 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, Porn King. I've added to the article, although there is the ((for|the Danish record label|Crunchy Frog Records)) template at the top already. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge I'm also not sold on the sources. Even the title of the sketch is unsourced (the actual sketch is called "Trade Descriptions Act"). I understand the fandom around Monty Python but there's just not any real coverage to write an article from. My philosophy is to WP:PRESERVE content but I'm disappointed by the bald !votes that I personally believe undermine that mission in the long run. Archrogue (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has provided numerous reliable sources as to the sketch's notability, and if the article itself lacks such citations then surely the solution is to add the citations to the article, not delete the whole thing.

And as for the use of the colloquial name of the sketch in the title, this is perfectly acceptable, and even preferable--after all, the article on the famous painting is called "Whistler's Mother," not "Arrangement in Grey and Black No. 1"--and the discussion herein has provided numerous secondary sources referring to the sketch as "Crunchy Frog" (as well as specific record albums that use the colloquial name for such cut).

I think that the Crunchy Frog article can be improved, as is the case for just about every article on Wikipedia, and that the information cited herein provides quite a bit of the material for such improvement. But as for the question being considered here--whether the article's subject matter meets Wikipedia's notability standard--I don't believe that it's a close question, as the cited reliable sources make clear. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title has no relevance to this debate. And whatever the "official" title, Crunchy Frog is the WP:COMMONNAME. I've provided a source above where the co-writer of the sketch (Cleese) refers to it as "crunchy frog."-- P-K3 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware, and thank you for that. My comment was in response to "Even the title of the sketch is unsourced (the actual sketch is called "Trade Descriptions Act")." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, "Trade Description Act", it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AuH2ORepublican I was responding to the same comment, rather than you, note the indentation. P-K3 (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AuH2ORepublican I was responding to you, as well as to the original comment! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - primarily based on points by Davidstewartharvey and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and others. Plenty of sources (such as NY Times one), listings, real world references.-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:15, 4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riya Manoj[edit]

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

Has been deleted via BLP PROD and speedy deletion recently (A7 and G5). Still appears to be a non-notable child actress. I can confirm that she is in Abhiyum Naanum listed as supporting cast. I can confirm that she is in Senthoora Poove as well but no indication that the role is a major one so I can't see that WP:NACTOR can be met. I'm not finding enough evidence of a WP:GNG pass in a WP:BEFORE search either, still. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NACTOR Ravensfire (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notable reliable sources not found and as a child actor she is not found in major roles. TheDreamBoat (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vanity article; too soon. RationalPuff (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails in meeting WP:NACTOR. Hulatam (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giriprasad Damodar 02. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DMacks. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:37, 25 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 15:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Quinnell[edit]

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

A BLP violation and (presumed) autobiography, that has only survived because the original BLP PROD was declined for having one reference, and skirts the edges of speedy because of a small amount of sourcing like this. However, that's just not enough for a BLP. The creator / subject has been tinkering with it for the last five years, presumably completely unaware that this is a completely inappropriate subject for a general purpose encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTRESUME. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest this is a notable person. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and BIO.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't believe that this autobiography has lasted for five years! Wow. Not even an assertion of notability let alone evidence. Zero decent references found. Clear violation of WP:NOTLINKEDIN Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spiderone, It lasted because of a mis-timing of events. The article was tagged for BLP PROD, then marked as reviewed when the article still had the tag on it. Then the BLP PROD was declined ([13]) as against policy, with the suggestion to use another deletion venue; however the original tagger didn't follow it up (because they weren't notified) and nobody else followed it up (because the article was tagged as reviewed, falling off the NPP queue). The lesson here is - don't tag an article as reviewed at NPP while there are deletion tags on it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a real series of unfortunate events. At least it's being picked up now, better late than never as they say. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Pretty surprised to see an autobiography last so long here. Java Hurricane 12:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: attending the same school as a notable person does not confer notability on the subject. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:59, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Religion (book)[edit]

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

The article has a link to the book as its only source. I've found it hard to find secondary coverage online. If one searches for the book's name together with its author's, some results appear though apparently nothing that would amount to significant coverage. So, the book doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so the page should be kept because information on Jainism and Science has very less sources on internet.. in order to promote the information about Jainism and science to public it should be kept...Rishabh.rsd (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBOOK. Whatever the intrinsic interest of the subject matter might be, Wikipedia isn't the place to write about books that haven't had a documentable influence elsewhere first. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic of Jainism and science may be notable, but this book doesn't inherit that notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) and I can't find substantial coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely any coverage(WP:NBOOK) the only source this page has from the book itself and its poorly written. Niger banda (talk) 08:53, 24 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) 21:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welkin-Animation[edit]

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORG scope_creep^Talk 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional universes in video games[edit]

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

I am sorry, but this seems a stupid list, you can have thousands of computer games in this list. This is kinda off-scope and goes into WP:OFFTOPIC. Govvy (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a red link; in a series containing lists for "film and television", "animation and comics", "literature" and "science fiction". Moondragon21 (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those with blue links seem to just link to articles about the games or their universes. We do have articles for Universe of The Legend of Zelda, Universe of Kingdom Hearts, etc, but this list seems more like a list of fictional location not universes. Article seems more like Category:Video game locations than Category:Fictional universes. Don't think there are enough valid links to make an article out of right now. Perhaps move it to the creator's draft space. Dream Focus 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on simply the name basis. We have very little clue how if these are meant to be "fictional" universes from the real one (only a few games purposely set this out, like No Man's Sky). If they are meant to be "fictional locations" as Dream Focus suggested, then the inclusion metric must absolutely be nailed down as there's far too many fictional locations in video games and that is a WP:TNT rational. Eg List of fictional planets, list of fictional countries, etc. -- and that might start going down too much of a rabbit hole. --Masem (t) 16:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Effectively unsourced, the only source being a passing mention confirming that Los Santos is the setting of Grand Theft Auto. All entries are misuse of the notion of a fictional universe, with The Sims 3 somehow listed twice, which means that there is no usable content whatsoever. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of video game locations and make it the list of Category:Video game locations. List criteria should only be bluelinked articles. Right now inclusion criteria are totally WP:INDISCRIMINATE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I love a good list article but this one makes little to no sense for multiple reasons. First, many of the entries in the "universe" field make no sense. For example, the Fallout games are set in the same "universe," just in different locations in the world. Similarly, why are there two different "universes" for The Sims 3? Second, this list is almost completely unsourced, suggesting that most of this is just OR or subjective opinions. Third, as others have pointed out, this is really something that is better suited for a category (if anything) than a list. Fourth, this list is potentially so broad as to be an indiscriminate grouping of things. In other words, every game or series is, theoretically, part of its own universe. That means that this list could potentially have tens of thousands of entries and be completely inoperable if it was anywhere close to complete. Sorry to say, but this list needs to go. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Masem, and also don't feel like typing out why. P anini ^🥪 20:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably 90% of video games in existence could qualify here... indiscriminate list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. IceWelder [✉] 11:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Is this article a joke? This article makes no sense as even the small amount of video games featured are not right. Why are games listed twice and only sections of them listed? Water Temple, The Sims 3, Megaton, etc. This is almost A11 material. Sorry if I got carried away. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ― Literally no reason to have something like this. Almost all video games use fictional words, ie this list is frivolous and doesn't make sense. Namcokid47 20:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why are video games as a medium, the odd one out; in reference to lists of universes in film and television, animation and comics, literature and science fiction. User:Moondragon21 21:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moondragon21: I'm gonna say they aren't the odd one out and this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issue. As in, if someone nominated the other ones for AfD they would also get deleted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't a notable topic or discriminate list. Every piece of fiction exist in its own fictional universe and you may as well list every video game here. I see that other areas like film and television have lists but I wish more projects like the video game Wikiproject were around to keep things organized to a certain level of quality. Archrogue (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Renaming won't solve the issue. Orientls (talk) 13:48, 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. Daniel (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Ensminger[edit]

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

Several reasons exist to examine this person's notability at AfD.

The page creator, who seems to have undisclosed COI, says on the talk page that "Mr. Ensminger wishes me to delete the entire article as he has no interest in Wikipedia... Mr. Ensminger has decided that the inability of Wikipedia to arrive at some conclusions regarding this page without slandering his name is unacceptable." So that amounts to article subject requests deletion.

I had also wondered about whether he is notable enough, after seeing the article at COIN, where King.parker3's edits were reported COI and the notability of the subject was also questioned. The original state of the article, before (I thought) I cleaned it up is here

Finally, King.parker3 has also repeatedly tried to CSD the article, which is not the proper venue. So here we are. Possibly (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. We have other avenues to resolve CoI and tendentious editing issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about Ensminger suggests he is so notable we should have an article on him when he does not want us to. In fact nothing suggests he is notable enough to merit an article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, subject is a "relatively unknown, non-public person", and as he has requested that this page be deleted, there is no reason to keep this around. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject doesn't seem to be so obviously notable that the public's interest in him would override the possible harm done by keeping the article against the subject's wishes (though we can't be completely sure it's him who posted in the talk). I don't know if the creator of the article has a COI, but unfortunately their efforts to add too much detailed information into the article made the page look promotional instead of a neutral Wikipedia biography, and that's why we ended up here. -kyykaarme (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he apparently does not meet WP:NPROF. According to Scopus he has an h-index of 5. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:22, 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. Per HEY rework meaning general coverage is sufficient to show notability. There was an ongoing discussion as to whether the ranking alone would be sufficient, but that particular dispute ended up being rendered moot. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello (Pop Smoke song)[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it has not received significant coverage; only two sources are independent of the song, which don't provide much info anyway. Also, it may have reached the charts in multiple countries but was only a top 20 hit in Greece, plus the album sources do not go into detail about the song at all and it has received a total lack of promotion. K. Peake 08:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon as an alternative to deletion. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Weak Keep in light of recent contributions. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. @The Ultimate Boss:, I'm coming to your defense on this; hope this makes up for my FA review fail. I'm sorry, but given the many chart positions on this plus the prose on the article being a decent amount if a little small, no way should this article be touched with a deletion, redirect or merge; otherwise I'd be filling out a MeToo allegation (I suck at humor, don't I). Sure, it was "only a top 20 hit in Greece," but getting into the top 100 or even 200 of any official country or genre chart in music markets saturated with 100,000 songs is significant, especially getting into the top 100 in nine countries! For certain albums, I do merge together singles into a single page if its only a couple of minor chart positions and coverage unique to the song is nearly non-existent (see what I did with Adventures in Modern Recording), but this is not the case here. HumanxAnthro (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro See WP:NSONGS: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" Furthermore, the article is lacking significant coverage; aside from the announcement, the entirety of the opening section consists of info about the song that is standard for album tracks. The following section does not even give info on the proper meaning of the song, only two sentences, also literally one review is included. --K. Peake 07:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the only reason why a lot of club hits, despite never having "significant coverage" by professional journalists cause there's no lyrical depth to them (unless we're talking about Eiffel 65's Blue), have Wikipedia pages? One reason: they got on to a shit-ton of charts worldwide, and discography articles couldn't handle listing chart positions for every single damn country for every single because the limit of charts is ten. See "2 Times" by Ann Lee, "I Like to Move It" by Reel 2 Reel and "Open Your Mind" by U.S.U.R.A. for what I'm talking about.

Do you comprehend the chance you have to make it on any if these nationwide charts if you were an artist? 0.1% "May" means very, very likely, and these chart positions are "significant" for a reason. Again, if this song only had a Flanders Tip chart position, I might reconsider, but it landed on what NSONGS would deem "significant" charts on nine countries. The track was in the top 40 in Canada for crying out loud (one position away from the top 30) and was also only one position away from the United States industry standard list of popular music (although on a side note I think the Rolling Stone Top 100 chart is more accurate, but that's a tale for another). You need an insane amount of individuals from these nations *listening* to these songs and *knowing* about it for many repeat listens a track to even have half a chance (f--- it, a quarter chance) of landing on the charts; it needs enough sales, streams, radio plays (which makes the Billboard positions especially relevant as they factor in radio the most, and only, like, the same five new songs play on pop radio nowadayss) to do this.

"the entirety of the opening section consists of info about the song that is standard for album tracks." So f---ing what? Lot's of articles about singles from other artists are the same deal. While I absolutely understand why you'd worry about the "significant coverage" (trust me, I nominated Meet the Woo Tour for merging into other articles for that same reason), the fact is the commercial performance is unique to this song, and so massive for a rap song from an American rapper a redirect or merge would be stupid. Also, this was released as a single; it's not like it's an album-only track that charted for one week as part of an "album bomb" *Cough* Scorpion *Cough*. HumanxAnthro (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, HipHopDX has headlined an article about the rapper with this song's name. You know what that means? It means the song is in people's head for this professional, high-quality to have to mention it to appeal to new readers. HumanxAnthro (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit to be surprised the little amount of album reviews that talked about the track, given that for most other albums, every track would at least have a few reviews discussing them... Still, I stand by what I say. HumanxAnthro (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll state a second option if the lack of non-chart coverage is overbearing. Strong Merge all chart positions (and I mean all of them) into a list of charts of the album's singles (a la that of Bjork's Vespertine but with all countries of this song included), cause that sure indicate's a moderately-performing single commercially and I don't want Canadian Hot 100 or even Bubbling Under Hot 100 positions dug up under the rug. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Pandora award of the song being one of the best of 2020 was just added by The Ultimate Boss. That recognition by literally the second biggest streaming service probably only below Spotify only further establishes the case for this article being kept. HumanxAnthro (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An award? It was listed among 50 other songs as receiving the most likes from users on the platform in a particular season of a year. Idk why that couldn't fit into an album article somewhere, if it even needs to be. They didn't "name" it anything as the article misleadingly states. Heartfox (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon. Only 1 source (HotNewHipHop) is actual coverage independent of an album. I couldn't find other sources to add to the article, either. Per WP:NSONGS, there is not "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Heartfox (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that HotNewHipHop is probably an unreliable source. If you click on some of the articles about songs like this (in the "latest songs" column) they are never negative and sometimes lean positive to a promotional degree. This sentiment reflects what they say on their "about" page: "We are quickly becoming the premium destination for hip hop music and a promotional powerhouse for established artists and rising stars." Therefore, this article has zero reliable sources that cover the song independent of an album. Heartfox (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I noticed WP:RSMUSIC says otherwise but that discussion was not unanimous. Something feels off to me idk. Heartfox (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox tell me. Is HotNewHipHop an unreliable source or not? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? I'm not the determiner of that. I just stated my opinion that I think it is problematic but that RSMUSIC thought it was reliable. Heartfox (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon) or Weak keep -- I normally do not think charting automatically makes a song notable, but this song did chart on seven national charts (minus NZ Heatseekers and US Bubbling), which is more than a few charts. Hardly any song could have such an impact. I would like to see the creator (The Ultimate Boss) to expand the article regarding the song's music and lyrics. If another round of source review turns out to be fruitless, however, then redirect is the way to go. A "charted singles" section can be created in the album's article to retain charting information of this single (like the example at OK Computer#Singles). HĐ (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ I do not know if you'll reply but I have added more sources. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing the Times of India and HotNewHipHop, the latter of which I am dubious about regarding reliability. HĐ (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have since added more sources that discuss the song's lyrics. I also added how famous rappers like Damson Idris and Bobby Shmurda saying positive things about the song. It is also is one of the only songs which spent the most weeks on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart without entering the Hot 100. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hot new hip hop and Times of india (both reliable sources) discuss the song in broadness enough for the track to have its own article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY and reasons above. The song has charted in several countries. Sources in the article seem reliable. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's charted in several territories and has received enough coverage to be notable enough for an article. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of child music prodigies. Daniel (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucciano Pizzichini[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I couldn't find sources to show evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Soft~~ Delete - Falls short of the threshold for notability, but he is worth of being included in List of child music prodigies---Darius (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hard or soft delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete - I agree to listing in List of child music prodigies. Solatido 06:11, 3 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 redirect to Linux Documentation Project#Content. Or elsewhere as determined through the editorial process. Sandstein 07:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How-to[edit]

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

This article is effectively unreferenced and has major problems with WP:OR and WP:GNG. At best, maybe redirect this to (roll the dice?) Handbook, User guide or Tutorial (which might benefit from a merge anyway...)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect somewhere. This really seems like a dictionary definition, and I don't even know one would begin looking for some kind of coverage of... the history of the how-to format? (If someone does know of such a thing, I rescind this.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect howto and HOWTO to Linux_Documentation_Project#Content, where this class of documents is mentioned. I agree it is hard to get sources for the how-to in general, but in the Linux world, HOWTOs are a well-known class of document and part of the LDP: see a list of hundreds of HOWTO documents at [14]. They are well-enough explained in the LDP target, so I think just the redirects are fine. HOWTOs are are also present in the Python community [15], but the linux usage is dominant. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 21:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect elsewhere. This kind of thing should be in another project like Wiktionary, as it's really a definition. Brownlowe.2 (talk) 23:13, 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. Consensus that NPOL is not met, without sufficient non-local coverage to show notability in the subject's position. Creator hasn't noted addition of sourcing in a week. For clarity's sake, I should note that the presence of articles for other members of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors doesn't infer notability here - if nothing else, their articles may also not show notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Miley[edit]

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

Doesn't qualify as per WP:NPOL, news coverage is all local and routine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County board of supervisors is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia, but this article is not actually demonstrating a reason to deem him more special than the norm. It certainly thinks it is, if you eyeball its length alone — but when you actually analyze the content, you notice that it's padded with a lot of trivia that isn't adding anything of noteworthy substance (an entire paragraph devoted just to the legal definition of "unincorporated community" has nothing whatsoever to do with making Miley notable, frex), and that it's referenced far, far too heavily to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. You have to plod all the way to footnote #24 (skip past #23, it's a blog) just to get to the first real media outlet, and even that source isn't about Nate Miley, but merely namechecks his existence in the process of being about something else. And just two more hits after that, you're back in primary source territory again. As always, the notability test for politicians does not hinge on the ability to use the city or county government's own self-published website as technical verification that the subject exists — it hinges on the depth and geographic range of his media coverage, and there's not nearly enough of that here to make him more notable than the norm for a not automatically notable role. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Kendall Harris and I made the wikipedia page for Nate Miley. I have been working closely with Miley's Communications Advisor and receiving many updates from them. So I am a little confused on why I need to have sources that are not exclusively "local", when his role is not international, hence there would solely be domestic sources detailing his role. Also, I have gotten information from press releases so I am confused on how to cite them because they are a downloadable pdf sent to me directly (so if I could have guidance on that, that would be great!). I was also wondering if you could point out the "padded trivia" as I am not sure to what you are referring with this term. It also would be helpful if you could explain what "media" coverage is, as my understanding is that media coverage refers to articles on websites. Finally, again if you could explain "geographic range" as I am confused on how this applies to a member in public government who is solely responsible for a certain district. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, the fact that his role is local rather than international places a much higher burden of proof onto your shoulders to justify why he needs to be in Wikipedia at all. We don't just keep articles about every single person in the world who holds office at the local city or county levels — to get a person into Wikipedia on that basis, you need to show a credible reason why he's significantly more special than most other county councillors, and it is not enough to just verify that he exists. That's why you need to show more than just local sources: because you need to show a reason why anybody outside Alameda County should care. We're an international encyclopedia, not an Alamedapedia, so the notability test for politicians at the city or county levels is not "does he exist": it's "is there a reason why somebody on the other side of the country or the world needs this article to exist?"

You can't honestly need somebody to actually define "media" for you: but media is not just any webpage that exists, it's newspapers and magazines and radio or television stations and books. It's not blogs, it's not the city's own website about itself, it's not the websites of organizations — it's stuff written by real journalists, in real media outlets that people consult when they want to know the news, independently of the subject.

Also, please familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules: working closely with the subject's communications advisor is exactly how not to make a Wikipedia article happen. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearcat. Thank you for the quick response and answers to my question. This is my first time crafting a Wikipedia Article so please excuse my lack of knowledge. Also, my apologies for the lack of specificity in regards to the phrase "working closely", I simply meant I am in the process of retrieving reputable sources (press releases) from them. So in order for my article to not get deleted, I am wondering what are the concrete steps I need to take? I understand that I need to prove his notability and I will also be in the process of that as he has pioneered many things and I am sure that I will be able to provide the sources and fulfill the other requirements Wikipedia says. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases from the subject aren't acceptable sourcing, because they aren't independent of the subject if he or his communications staff wrote the press releases themselves. You need journalism in media outlets, not press releases self-authored by the subject's own staff, to make a person notable enough for inclusion here. Bearcat (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Bearcat. Thank you for letting me know, I appreciate your diligence and willingness to explain these things to me. After, I retrieve reputable sources, how will I need to prove his notability and what steps will I need to take after that to avoid deletion. Also, what is the timeline like for nominations of deletion, ie. how much time will I get to retrieve these sources and then achieve the following steps to keep from page from being deleted? Thank you so much again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. He is a councilman of a major city. That should say it all. I know there are those who believe that city council members are not WP:Notable, but that's fallacious. Now, as to whether the article could be more neutral in tone, well, that's another matter. But leave it in, and help to improve it. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not accept city or county councillors as "inherently" notable just because they exist. City and county councillors have to pass a much higher burden of significance than just being minimally sourceable as existing. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I previously worked to clean this page of gratuitous promotional material after it was listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup, I am sad to say this this page isn't fixable without WP:TNT. Only half of the current members of the Oakland City Council have pages, and I assume there is far more local and regional coverage of current incumbents than Miley, who served from 1992 to 2000. As others have previously mentioned, no source on Miley supports his significance outside of Alameda County. KidAd ⑊ SPEAK 09:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you all for the feedback. I wanted to direct your attention to this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_County_Board_of_Supervisors. As you can see, Nate Miley is listed there and other members have their own seperate Wikipedia page. I was wondering why they are allowed to but not Miley? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs)

Pages must be evaluated individually. I'm not saying that it's impossible for people in the same position to be notable, but they need to have accrued WP:RS coverage and meet WP:NPOL. KidAd ⑊ SPEAK 18:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KidAd. OK, I just looked at Keith Carson's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Carson. And under the references and in the content there are no mentions of any significance of his role outside of Alameda County, so I am confused as to why you drew that point to the page about Miley yet there is no mentions of this on Keith Carson's page. Also, for the notable sources, I looked on Keith Carson's page and there is a website that has information provided by himself and other media sources. And in my page I included sources from and not limited to: The San Francisco Examiner, East Bay Times, East Bay Citizens, and SFGate. So what other sources do I need to consult in order to avoid my page being deleted and how should I prove his notability, if he doesn't have an international impact (similar to Keith Carson)? Thank you. Also this is similar to Wilma Chan, who also has her own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilma_Chan. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Pages must be evaluated individually. We are talking about Nate Miley, so referencing similar pages is an example of the weak "other stuff exists" argument. KidAd ⑊ SPEAK 20:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KidAd. Ok thank you for letting me know. Would I be able to add the reputable sources and this would allow the page to be published, also I forgot to mention this, but this was a first draft and it was my mistake to move it into Wikipedia as I meant to keep it in my sandbox. Hence, would I be allowed to move the article back into the sandbox, add the sources, and then move it back to Wikipedia and gain feedback from editors like yourself? Thank you again and my apologies for the misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendallh2021 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible for you to add the reputable sources before this AfD discussion is over, which I have seen happen, though I am not confident about that happening in this case. If you do add a significant amount of reliable, independent sources that address the subject in detail, leave a comment in this discussion noting that you have done so. KidAd ⑊ SPEAK 23:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sources need to be in-depth about the article's subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lacjac, California[edit]

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

Actually the site of the huge O'Neill wine complex, the successor to the winery mentioned by Durham. It also appears to have been the site of a SP-SF crossover; the SF line is gone, but part has been retained as a spur into the plant. An apartment complex generates a ton of false GHits but I couldn't find anything else except the typical rail-related hits and direct references to the winery. Not a notable place, and not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe. I went through Google Scholar, Books, and Search and found nothing that can be added to what Mango found. Also found nothing significant while searching JSTOR and Internet Archive. Paul H. (talk) 04:46, 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 redirect to List of magical girl works. Sandstein 07:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of magical girls[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list with original research and no sources. lullabying (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Maybe merge some applicable information to help with List of magical girl works. Link20XX (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate, mostly unsourced list of near-zero utility. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Magical girl exist and lists are always more useful than categories. The genre of Magical girl is quite well defined. Unfortunately all the blue links seem to lead to the series they are in, not a page for the individual girls. For the list to be valid, it needs to link to enough character articles. Dream Focus 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of magical girl works - As Dream Focus said, most of the blue links here are just links to various series, not to individual, notable characters. This makes this a rather redundant WP:FORK for that already existing list. Thus, redirecting this to the actual sourced list of Magical Girl works would be the best solution for now. Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I actually just noticed that the List of magical girl works was just recently created by this AFD's nominator, likely as a response to this list, so this article being a WP:FORK as I said above is not actually accurate. But, it still makes more sense for the list of notable series to take precedent over this list of largely not-independently-notable individual characters, so my suggestion for the Redirect still stands. Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been planning to make that article for a long time in response to my work on magical girl, which I've been editing in these past two months. lullabying (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can anyone tell me why List of magical girl works is superior? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Largely because outside of a few examples, such as the Sailor Moon characters, none of these characters actually have their own articles - the links here just lead to the articles on the series they come or for the the character lists for said series. Thus, it really just serves the same function as the List of magical girl works, just in an increasingly overly long fashion. Rorshacma (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of magical girl works, or delete. Rorshacma sums it up quite nicely: This is redundant to the point of being indiscriminate. Information about individual MG characters should be listed in the articles or character lists for those works. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE and would be misleading if it was actually redirected._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Magical girl. There isn't much of a list and these become subjective and hard to verify. It is better to cover examples in an article where this can be described better. Archrogue (talk) 18:53, 28 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. Notability shown by numerous sources Nosebagbear (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Brunelle[edit]

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

WP:AKON Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 03:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Grammarxxx, did you search for sources about him? A quick Google News search turned up a whole bunch. Examples: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and a ((trout)) to the nominator for failing WP:BEFORE and for nominating an article for deletion citing only an essay and not a guideline or policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CallTrackingMetrics[edit]

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

routine coverage, fails NCORP Mazurkevin (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been blocked as a spammer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any significant, independent coverage of this company to show that it meets WP:NCORP. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the service. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 28 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) 02:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Gilman[edit]

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

There is no RS available for her, most of the sources are primary. Also her work in 2005 as just as a coach intern and she is definitely not professional athlete. Fails GNG too. Niligirinorbert (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Niligirinorbert (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I did a fair amount of looking and saw nothing that wasn't a press release or an "article" on a promotional website. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom being new notwithstanding, coverage is weak and specifically blogs, Thrive Global puffery and Q&A interviews with yet other blogs. Mazurkevin (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OnlyThenDidI (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reliable Sources are week and fails to meet criteria for GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDreamBoat (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that notability is met Nosebagbear (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Cartoon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find a single reliable source except for the short, archived references from the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun. Unless there is more news coverage of this website that I missed then I really don't think it's notable. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The two sources are multiple and enough to satisfy GNG, and The Washington Post and Baltimore Sun are excellent sources. The articles suggest that multiple news sites also used the cartoons created, evidenced by the San Francisco Chronicle/SFGATE link. The Baltimore Sun link currently provided is a strange archive link... It only links the abstract and not the article. After searching for a better archive, the full text was pasted in this forum, and if you have Newspapers.com access, it made the front page of the sports section here, taking up most of the page (thanks to some of the cartoons), and then being continued on a subsequent page (still taking most of the page). It shouldn't matter that the Post piece is archived, but that piece also spans two webpages (well over WP:100W), and it technically is live, (though for some reason the image is only retained in the archive vice live site).
The article should probably be trimmed, though. -- 2pou (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above; offline sources are still valid (WP:OFFLINE) and I'm convinced by the above that there is likely more. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this appears to be notable per 2pou's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Porsche 996. Consensus the issue doesn't warrant its own page.

I have merged in a couple of key lines, although if someone has specific changes they want to make, that's obviously also fine.

I've redirected post the merge since that seems to be what the participants wanted in aggregate. If any of the three disagree please let me know. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche Intermediate Shaft Bearing issue[edit]

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

Not sure this belongs in a encyclopedia the information can likely be merged into the Porsche 996 article as we do not have articles on every possible automotive issue and most of the sources seem to be low quality sources 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly merge a couple of sentences (one briefly explaining the problem, another for the lawsuit). Even notorious issues with fatalities may not warrant standalone articles, e.g. the Ford Pinto's fuel tank problem. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Porsche 996. Seems like it warrants more of a mention there than there is currently, but probably not nearly as long as the article being discussed. A7V2 (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are very strong points for keeping from experienced editors and sufficient policies are invoked. Apart from that, the nominator is indefinitely blocked for advertising, so the nomination could be a bad faith one to delete competitors' pages. (non-admin closure) ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namely (company)[edit]

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

Unambiguous advertising Mazurkevin (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nominator does not appear to have done a WP:BEFORE search. The company has been the subject of non-promotional news coverage from Forbes -- the magazine, not the contributor network, which is a reliable source per WP:RSP -- (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2018/05/15/namely-fires-ceo/?sh=7c35305b11de); as well as TechCrunch (examples: https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/02/exclusive-hr-startup-namely-once-a-high-flier-gets-a-new-ceo-and-60-million-in-new-funding-to-soar-again/ and https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/01/namely-a-former-high-flier-slashes-staff-as-demand-for-its-hr-software-dries-up-in-the-pandemic; the author, Connie Loizos, was senior TechCrunch staff, and the coverage does not seem particularly promotional, so the caveats on TechCrunch in WP:RSP don't apply here.) There is also this article from Fortune (https://fortune.com/2014/11/04/namely-hr-software/) -- it's paywalled, so I can't immediately tell how in-depth it is, but the author, Erin Griffith, was a senior writer at the publication and now at NYT, so it is most likely independent coverage.

So -- yet again -- AfD is not cleanup, and puffery alone is not a reason to delete (as opposed to clean up) an article on a subject that is otherwise notable. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note On a review of gnews, Techcrunch read like routine fundraising coverage. Same for the Fortune piece, which, too, is routine coverage based on a press release about $12 million in funding. You could be right but I do think this is closer to a deletion than a keep but we shall see. Mazurkevin (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read these? The earlier TechCrunch piece does not mention fundraising anywhere; it is about layoffs and turnover at the board level, while also delving somewhat into the history of the company in a way that implies that the journalist, not the company, finds it notable. The later TechCrunch piece is a follow-up to that, by the same journalist, which also goes into significantly more detail including interviews with people outside the company, and reporting on the aforementioned turnover. The Forbes article is further reporting on that turnover. I don't know what's in the Fortune piece, as it is paywalled; if you have read the un-paywalled article I would certainly like to hear it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CORPDEPTH: "For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO." I fail to see any possible interpretation of the sources provided that does not qualify as discussing in some depth the major changes in leadership, among other things. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Reviews
1. Clymo, Rob (2021-02-02). "Namely employee management review". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  This is a detailed review of Namely. The review notes, "Bigger businesses though will love the power and flexibility offered by Namely, even though running costs are likely to be fairly sizeable too."
2. Marvin, Marvin; Sevilla, Gadjo (2019-07-11). "Namely Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  This is a detailed review of Namely. The review lists cons as "An expensive option for larger businesses" and "Compensation section feels limited in tracking salary changes after performance reviews".
3. Wescott, Shelbi (2020-03-13). "Namely Review". Merchant Maverick. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  This is a detailed review of Namely. The review lists cons as "Not suited for small businesses" and "Non-transparent pricing".
4. Andre, Louie (2021-02-13). "Namely Review". FinancesOnline. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  The review notes, "Namely is a very straightforward human resources management platform that is built to do more than just simplify companies do HR. It is an end-to-end HR, payroll, and benefits solution that easily fits well into any company culture."
Fundraising
1. Conrad, Alex (2017-01-05). "Growing Between Zenefits And Workday, Namely Raises $50 Million And 'Sees A Path To IPO'". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
2. Konrad, Alex (2015-03-05). "How Workday HR Challenger Namely Doubled Its Valuation In Just Three Months". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
3. Griffith, Erin (2014-11-04). "The HR software battle heats up: Namely raises $12 million". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
4. Clancy, Heather (2016-02-23). "HR Software Startup Namely Gets $30 Million Infusion". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
5. Griffith, Erin (2014-06-18). "HR services startup Namely raises $4.7 million to take on Paychex and ADP". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
6. Gage, Deborah (2015-03-06). "Namely Adds $11M to Series B for Cloud-Based HR Suite". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
7. Zakrzewski, Cat (2017-01-05). "Human Resources Startup Namely Raises $50 Million". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
8. Hesseldahl, Arik (2015-06-18). "Namely, Human Resources in the Cloud, Raises $45 Million in Round Led by Sequoia". Vox. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
9. Lunden, Ingrid (2017-01-05). "After rejecting Google, Namely raises $50M to take on the biggies in HR". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
10. Loizos, Connie (2018-08-02). "Exclusive: HR startup Namely, once a high flier, gets a new CEO and $60 million in new funding to soar again". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
Firing of CEO
1. Chapman, Lizette (2018-05-15). "Another HR Startup Ousts Its CEO Over Misconduct Claims". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
2. Konrad, Alex (2018-05-15). "New York HR Startup Namely Fires CEO Matt Straz Amid Investigation". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
3. Hesseldahl, Arik; Bergen, Mark (2016-03-18). "Google Is Shopping for Cloud Companies. On the List: Namely and Shopify". Vox. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
Layoffs
1. Loizos, Connie (2020-05-01). "Namely, a former high flier, slashes staff as demand for its HR software dries up in the pandemic". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Namely to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:20, 28 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. This appears to have been a bad faith nomination and the sockpuppetry is disregarded. I am not sure what policy/guideline based argument is made by the remaining delete !vote but as it has been demonstrated and agreed that there is sourcing that meets GNG the result is keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart Esports[edit]

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

~~promotion of esports and paid press release PanunKoshurBoi (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)~~Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I follow the deletion argument. This appears to be a referenced article about an esports league. It's had a bit of suspicious editing activity, but even ignoring banned users, it seems to have been edited by a number of people, and is referenced to news articles from different sources. What am I missing? ApLundell (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ApLundell, you're missing the "rivalry game" played by these new accounts. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 08:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I see now. Children fighting.

KEEP. ApLundell (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reliable source that show this eSports is qualifying for wikipedia SavingWikiFromSpaming (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SavingWikiFromSpaming was a block-evading sockpuppet of TheRedReaper, who had been indefinitely blocked at 15:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— SavingWikiFromSpaming (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep -- Stalwart's cross-border collaboration project was covered by Vice, Dot Esports, and The Indian Express. There's also this in the Economic Times and this in the Esports Observer, which WP:VG considers reliable. I wouldn't rely on the AFK Gaming site for notability, but I don't think this article needs to. I'm also pretty confident that users like SavingWikiFromSpaming aren't exactly operating in good faith, as their only edits are to !vote delete on esports AfDs and file spurious SPIs. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources, as indicated by Alyo. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 02:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News article don’t show the significance of a team. A team should win or participate in a notable competition. If i only create a team and post some news article it is not shows a good thing. This thing may only created for social handle verification. Wikipedia should not promote this unimportant objects. Wikipedia is like a mirror for world which gives us real history about our past and present. Please do the appropriate thing it deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.95.161 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on a crusade against Zeyan Shafiq – see IP range 03.127.95.160–163's contribution history.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:01, 25 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.