The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Result was overall keep though a couple of delete votes and a weak delete along with comments indicate article and sourcing can still be improved. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rashida Richardson[edit]

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

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

no evidence of notability: the works listed are not books, they are a magazine article, a newspaper article, a web page, and a technical report. The references are bioblurbs, presumably written by the individual or their press agent. Google Scholar does show citations to some of the publications, notably the report., but not enough to indicate notability. The only other references I was able to find are social media sites, bioblurbs in connection with lectures or minor appointments, and some of the articles she reported on CBS.

I am truly distressed to see that this article was the product of an excellent and responsible project that has produced much better content than this about more clearly notable women. The point of such projects is not just to add articles, but to add articles with good references about important subjects--we rely on the projects not just to get articles written, but to help the encyclopedia maintain quality.

It has proven very difficult to write a article showing the notability of a reporter, unless they have won a major award or published notable books. They're not usually a good choice for editing projects, where it's better to choose people whose notability is easier to demonstrate. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I thought this one was borderline and I’ve wondered several times whether to nominate it myself. I think this nomination sums up very well why the subject pretty certainly doesn’t reach the threshold. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC) striking my !vote in the light of new sources added Mccapra (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I agree that this is borderline, although I think she's doing important work. What pushes me from weak keep to weak delete is that her only publication with triple-digit citations on Google Scholar [1] has 12 authors (and she's in the middle of a non-alphabetical list), so we can hardly credit Richardson with most of its success. Beyond the wrong-side-of-borderline case for WP:PROF#C1, I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added sources from NBC News, CBS News, and Reuters that quote Richardson as an expert, and added a recent co-authored opinion article by Richardson in The Hill. While the article still needs work, I have tried to update it to make the basis of her notability more clear, and I think the coverage she has recieved at minimum appears to meet WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also moved the MIT Technology Review reference from the lead and added information from it related to Richardson's input as an expert, added a New York Times article that quotes Richardson as an expert, and added information about the recent documentary "The Social Dilemma" that interviews Richardson. Beccaynr (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: None of these sources appears to cover Richardson in any depth — sources 6-11 only mention her briefly as the source for a quote, and source 12 is an interview, usually not counted towards notability. Can you supply any evidence of the in-depth coverage in independent reliable published sources required by WP:GNG? Because to me the news stuff you added (long breathless overdetailed paragraphs of "she was quoted in such-and-such a source", and then "she was quoted again in such-and-such a source) look like WP:WIKIPUFFERY (specifically, "detailed listings of minor biographical details") not notability. They are acting to make me think she is less notable, if that's the most that can be said about her, rather than more notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the reasoning in the essay WP:INTERVIEW about how "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability," and specifically, "The material provided by the interviewee may be [...] secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported," because the recognition of Richardson's expertise is a form of commentary from an independent and reliable source. In this article, I think what I have added builds encyclopedic content about Richardson related to her recognition over time with regard to a variety of subjects, including facial recognition technology (NBC News, 2018, CBS News, 2020), her scholarly work about 'smart policing' (CBS News, 2020), predictive policing (MIT Technology Review, 2021, New York Times, 2020), and 'Big Tech' (Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.) (Reuters, 2019, "The Social Dilemma", 2020), because she is engaging in science communication related to her expert opinion about challenges with the techology, and in several instances, advocacy about how to address the challenges. These do not appear to be 'minor biographical details,' although the sources help verify aspects of her career, including as a lawyer, researcher, and scholar, which also do not seem to be WP:PUFFERY. I previously removed two citations that only referred to repetitive 'bioblurbs,' and focused on adding sources that would add depth to the article. I noted WP:BASIC above to address concerns about in-depth coverage, and I think it applies here due to the multiple independent and reliable sources taking note of Richardson as an expert. Beccaynr (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Beccaynr. WestCD (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Beccaynr has established the subject's notability with multiple independent sources. rspεεr (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond being multiple and independent, notability requires that the sources provide depth of coverage of the subject. Which ones do you think actually do that (and are multiple and independent)? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we reading the same WP:GNG? The reporting on Richardson's work is not "trivial mentions". We're not talking about a high-school jazz band here; her work and the reporting on it influences AI policy. When it comes to the WP:BASIC criterion of independent sources, just as one starting example, Technology Review and NBC are of course independent of each other and of Richardson. I see no reason to continue to pursue deletion of this well-written, reliably-sourced article. rspεεr (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The mentions in these articles are primarily one- or two-sentence quotes from her, as a representative of a project, of the policy position of the project. In what sense is that in-depth reporting on original contributions to this area by Richardson? It seems more that she is merely a spokesperson. If a newspaper article reports a quote from the president's press secretary, that doesn't make it in-depth coverage of the work of a press secretary. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps it can be made more clear in how each source is introduced, but in all of the news sources, she appears to be cited as the person doing the work, not as a spokesperson (e.g. NBC News, 2017: Legislative Counsel, New York Civil Liberties Union, NBC News, 2018: director of policy research for the AI Now Institute, CBS News 2020: director of policy research for the AI Now Institute, New York Times 2020: a visiting scholar at Rutgers Law School and senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund), for her expert opinion on the subject being reported. Beccaynr (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: Let's look in more detail at the first source you suggest, NBC News. The entire content pertaining to Richardson of that article (which contains much else not pertaining to her) is the quote "The first concern is that it gives officers full discretion to decide who to use the Textalyzer against," said Rashida Richardson, legislative council for the New York Civil Liberties Union. "That allows for a lot of bias.", and a similar quote later on citing some other organization's guidelines. It gives her job title as being a spokesperson for the NYCLU and gives her statement of the opinion of the NYCLU on the Textalyzer. When you say "the person doing the work", what work do you imagine she is doing, that is being reported on in-depth in this quote?? I might expect someone named as "legislative council" for a lobbying organization to actually do some work drafting legislation and persuading legislators to vote for it — I would consider those to be significant activities that could be (but seldom are) reported on in depth by publications. But just spouting an opinion in a newspaper story is not work and there is nothing in-depth about Richardson or her contributions to this issue given here beyond her mere job title. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a link in the article to the NYCLU that clarifies "legislative council" is a typo, and Richardson was Legislative Counsel, and therefore was doing the work and had expertise in the subject matter. I don't see anything in the article that suggests she is introduced as a spokesperson. This is also one source that can be read in the context of other coverage across her career in several professional roles, where the common theme is independent and reliable sources seeking her out for her expert opinion, based on her professional work, which is why WP:BASIC notability appears to exist. Beccaynr (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re "therefore was doing the work": Again, WHAT WORK? Please give me some detail about the work she did as a legislative council. What things happened under her guidance? What written products did she produce as council? What legislation passed because she pushed it to pass? What events happened because she organized them? Anything like that? The only things in that source are an opinion and a job title. That's not in-depth coverage of her work. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you scroll down the page on the NYCLU link above, there is a link to an article written by Richardson about New York City Council legislation, which also discusses past testimony by the NYCLU and further monitoring the NYCLU planned to do. In the "Our Work" tab on the NYCLU website, there is a dropdown list with "In the Legislature," which includes a description of the NYCLU's legislative advocacy work. But I am also not trying to suggest that the 2017 NBC News article is in-depth coverage, and instead that it is seeking her opinion as an expert based on her professional work as an attorney for the ACLU of New York, and when combined with other coverage, helps support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG Article supported with reliable and independent sources provide coverage of the subject. --Kemalcan (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the discussion above. I am not seeing any examples of specific and detailed coverage of the subject by independent WP:RS, as required by WP:GNG. GNG requires that a source address the subject "directly and in detail." One-two sentences per source don't count, even of there are 50 sources of this type. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a subscription-blocked 2020 Sunday Times article with Richardson's image at the top that may offer more significant coverage; the bylined reporter also produced a 36-minute podcast titled "AI Now's Rashida Richardson: "Free-range facial recognition‪"‬." There is also a 2020 ABC News article quoting her as an expert that further supports WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what's in the Sunday Times article, so perhaps somebody who has the subscription can comment on that. The podcast is an interview and we generally regard interviews similarly to items written by the the subjects themselves. The ABC News article contains a single-sentence mention of Richardson. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the discussion of the WP:PROF guideline below and the WP:INTERVIEW essay above, there appears to be an exception for interviews when an independent and reliable source interviews someone as an expert, because this is secondary source commentary about expertise that supports the notability of the interview subject. Beccaynr (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:IAR. The notability is borderline, but I find it sufficient for a neutrally worded article -- esp. the MIT Technology source. In any event, it's not a good look for Wikipedia to be deleting an article on a Black female scholar whose research focuses on the use of IA in policing of marginalised communities. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:Too soon. No pass of WP:Prof yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Per the WP:PROF guideline, "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." The AI Now Institute is affiliated with NYU, and that helps clarify how there are more than a "small number" of quotations in non-local conventional media sources in this article and also linked in this discussion that quote Richardson as an academic expert in the particular area of algorithmic bias. Only one of the NBC News sources in the article quotes Richardson in her capacity as an NYCLU attorney, but all of the other sources found thus far (and the documentary) seek her expert academic opinion, while she was at the AI Now Institute or Rutgers. Beccaynr (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an update, I found and added a CS Monitor source with more extensive quotes from Richardson, another MIT Technology Review source with a different author and a Detroit Free Press article that quote Richardson, and information about Richardson's testimony before a US Senate subcommittee in a hearing titled "Optimizing for Engagement: Understanding the Use of Persuasive Technology on Internet Platforms." Beccaynr (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (and a Canadian Press source quoting Richardson as an expert) Beccaynr (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (and TIME magazine noting her Senate testimony, and in-depth coverage of Richardson's work in another MIT Technology Review article) Beccaynr (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; a great deal of sources are provided that establish notability as a subject-matter expert, which would also pass WP:PROF as above. Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:22, 10 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 is that the subject is not notable, and it isn't clear what the ideal redirect target would be. No prejudice against a redirect in the future should one be identified. StarM 17:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC) StarM 17:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Brady (DJ)[edit]

Al Brady (DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Asides this, the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The aforementioned source is good but is insufficient to establish notability. They also do not satisfy any criterion from both WP:SINGER & WP:ENT. A before search links me to user generated primary sources. Celestina007 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I'm not sure why this page is up for deletion. I am guilty of starting this late in the evening and it is part of my own project to document 'Little Darlin's Rock N Roll Palace' which was well known on TV and available on DVD. Al Brady, from what I can establish, was an entertainer there who was well known at the time including by the likes of Muhammed Ali as well as the numerous other singers who played at the venue in the day. You write that 'the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them.' - what do you mean by this? I did not have time to finish it if you think it a little short. You write 'A before search links me to user generated primary sources' but which ones do you mean? And how do you know for a fact they are user generated? What evidence do you have for this? I have not created any of these sources either. I have others too that don't seem #user generated' perhaps others are as you say, but it would be good to see proof and further context behind what you say please. Other sources that I mean to use to build on the article: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3]

Thank you for your time.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe the subject is notable, and looking at the sourcing for Little Darlin's Rock n’ Roll Palace, the sourcing there is very weak as well. Blogspot is not considered an RS. —Kbabej (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete minor local dj, no in depth coverage in sources that would establish notability. CUPIDICAE💕 12:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion- I disagree with the deletion of this page as outlined in my initial response, but also he was intrinsic to the reformation of WABC (AM) and is mentioned along with other Programme Directors (who also have their own wiki pages). Also, his contribution to Little Darlin's Rock n’ Roll Palace is also palpable, even more so when considering the historic importance and widespread media coverage of the venue's shows at the time. Thank you.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A minor local DJ’s CV with some name dropping. It does not belong on WP. —Kbabej (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, The term 'Minor local DJ' is not factual and if you read his wiki page you would know that he was more than just that. This term undermines your reasons to delete. Minor local DJ's don't tend to be notable Programme Directors (His name was on the WABC (AM) wiki article long before I arrived) or preside over televised music gigs of some of the biggest stars of the 50's and 60's, and while you may feel it is name dropping- they also rarely get to work with others such as Wolfman Jack et al. Al seems to now be a local DJ, that is clear - But to ignore his contribution to some of the nationwide well known radio stations of the time and to ignore his contribution to Little Darling's seems bizarre to me. I understand why you want it deleted to an extent, but believe his contribution to the historicity of Little Darlin's Rock n’ Roll Palace is of clear notable importance. Thank you.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. I honestly tried to rescue this, but could not succeed. I also tried various searches uses WABC, on various Google websites and LinkedIn. I can't verify any of the information, outside of the sources already on the page. Generally, we tend to keep drive time DJs, but not other DJs. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearian, thank you for your sincere message and attempts to save the article. I wonder why you feel you did not succeed in saving it? I searched using his real name and came across this: http://traxandgrooves.blogspot.com/2017/07/al-brady.html - however they seem to think the guy died. I'm not sure why he needs to be verified further than he already is verified using the sources provided either. I still also note no one seems to acknowledge the importance of his role at Little Darling's. Also if 'we' tend to keep drive time DJ's then I don't see why other types of DJ's are not included. I of course am going to hope that we can keep him on wiki as he was an important aspect of Little Darling's and the 50's/60's revival scene at the time that was hatched via their TV/Live shows. Thank you again for your efforts and kind message.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glaaaastonbury88, the problem is we can verify that the subject exists, but not that he is notable and passes WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. At the moment the article reads like a resumé rather than an encyclopedic article, and that's because it is mainly sourced from the biographies provided by his places of work, along with a couple of pieces from his local newspaper, one of which is just advertising for his new radio show, and the other is an interview with him which is a WP:PRIMARY source. Blogs are not usually accepted as sources on Wikipedia as they are usually written by one person and have no editorial control, so the source you provided above isn't acceptable either. What we are looking for are sources that are independent of the subject or his employers, and pass WP:RS as credible sources, and that is what the editors above are struggling to find. Incidentally, the article for Little Darling's is in a terrible state as well and could well be put up for deletion as well if it is not fixed, but I guess if the venue is really what Mr. Brady is known for, it is possible that this article could be redirected there if it is not kept? Richard3120 (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richard3120. Thank you for your reasoned reply. It is starting to make more sense to me. Little Darlings definitely needs some work, the issue is there was a legal battle involved in it's name - something that tore the whole thing apart and has led to the only real proof of it's existence (Other than the links already there) lying in the prolific recordings that are available on youtube and to buy on DVD. Perhaps Brady's page could be kind of linked to Little Darling's in some way then? I think that is a good compromise. Thank you for your time and patience.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Little Darlin's Rock n’ Roll Palace, per discussion above. (Or redirecting to WABC (AM) would be acceptable, too. In fact, it might be the more notable redirect.) I agree that as a stand alone article this subject simply lacks the reliable references to merit independent encyclopedic importance beyond his connection to either the station or the venue. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would perhaps have a point if any of the sources in the target article mentioned him, but they don't, so it should not be directed there. CUPIDICAE💕 16:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. That being the case, I noticed he is discussed prominently in the "Disco era" section of the WABC (AM) article without sources. It may be necessary to evaluate that article as containing original research. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:29, 10 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. Like Black Kite I hate NCS closes for BLPs, but three relists already means my hands are tied here. Daniel (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold M. Weiner[edit]

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

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

No apparent notability. Limited Google News/books results. Dustinmacdonald (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any wp:IS or wp:sigcov about subject, current article reads like a resume, and Google results generally show ads related to subject's firm. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 06:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a little passing coverage for his actions as a lawyer, but nothing rising to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't know where you're looking, but I'm seeing plenty of coverage, from the 1970s to present: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and many more. Easily passes my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That coverage barely meets your own list of lawyer notability requirements, with the only one it fits being "Trying a case with its own Wikipedia article." Several of the sources you linked are discussions of cases where Weiner was their defense lawyer, not the subject. Sitting on a nonprofit Board does not establish notability. Being published in the law review is not the same as being editor. Being mentioned in passing is not enough. None of those sources are detailed primary secondary sources about Weiner himself. --Dustinmacdonald (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Sourcing is generally ok. Article needs to be rewritten via WP:NPOV. Redoryxx (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable attorney based on the sources cited and those satisfies criterion for WP:GNG. Luciapop (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Most coverage is merely local reporting. BD2412 T 19:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lance Gibbs. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Lance Gibbs[edit]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Lance Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NLIST which says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Plenty of space on the main article to merge prose, if any. Also, note that there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:: as there is a couple headings at that page, am I to assume the RfC close was: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles. There does, however, seem to be a pretty clear agreement from most participants that swathes of numbers or lists of awards, empty of content or context, are not appropriate for Wikipedia, and that where sections for achievements/awards are included, they should be more than just a basic list, being a means to expand and add value to the article"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

• Comment I can't see that RfC even discussing these articles - can you point to the consensus please? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dweller: There are two identically titled sections on the page linked; you will need to scroll down for the actual RFC section, the close of which Lee Vilenski has copied above. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see a consensus in that RfC for anything other than egregious use of lists of awards within biography articles#. Am I missing something? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you have it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lance Gibbs (removing details of the batsmen dismissed). No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT, and would enhance the content there. International five-wicket hauls are a noteworthy achievement, and by definition, a list of them within the main article has the necessary context and explanation, so does not fail NOTSTATS in this regard. Unfortunately the nom seems to be misrepresenting the consensus of the cited RFC, which closed: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wjemather The RfC cited earlier suggests we shouldn't include this sort of information in biographies. So it's here. As I mention above, I don't see a consensus for us not having these articles as list articles. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, and there is also no consensus from there against merging and/or having the information within the main biography article, provided sufficient explanatory prose is provided (much like is required for a list article). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page, in particular the batter's dismissed and economy rate are really not needed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blue Square Thing, for license/attribution reasons, if any copyrightable prose is added to any another page, then we can't delete the original page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:RAWDATA. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article is just a list of scores from ESPNCricinfo and has no independent sources covering these individual achievements as a set. Agree with nom that there should be no precedent to include these on players' articles. Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to AFD closer recent afds were closed as Merge - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Faf du Plessis (2nd nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Marvan Atapattu; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Cheteshwar Pujara, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Hussey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Desmond Haynes; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Colin Cowdrey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Martin Crowe; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Wally Hammond; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Justin LangerDavidstewartharvey (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The following also resulted in DELETE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan while these following articles resulted in redirection to player's article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. With all of these lists of centuries or five-wicket hauls for players we are getting mixed outcomes. Admin needs to allow greater discussions (longer than a week) on all AfD's without resulting to arbitrary outcomes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 4 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect this to the article about the player, where the information will be more likely to be seen by readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per those above. BD2412 T 06:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linaria dalmatica[edit]

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

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

This page only has 4 citations, contains a lot of opinion words that are unsourced, and this page has wrong capitalizations. Larryzhao123 (talk | contribs) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and species are notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. No sufficient argument presented for deletion. Chris857 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Looks to me to pass WP:NSPECIES. And here's another piece of significant coverage to throw in, as well. Hog Farm _Talk 03:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a member of an inherently notable category. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously, valid species. Removed the unsourced material, added Kew ref. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no valid reason for deleting this article and two of the concerns of the nominator have now been addressed anyway Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. —Kbabej (talk) 06:35, 7 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. WP:HEY factors in here. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jones (artilleryman)[edit]

Robert Jones (artilleryman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails WP:N. There is a lack of WP:BESTSOURCES as well. The articles sources rely on extracts from a couple of published books and from a website that wouldn't count as WP:RS. Angryskies (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources used are not WP:RS Jenyire2 05:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has coverage in RS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Three of the four sources provided are by the same author and of questionable reliability. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR either. Mztourist (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hawkeye7. Jenyire2, what is your reason for saying there are no WP:RS sources? The entry in the Who's who in Gay and Lesbian History is a reference book entry devoted to him, and fairly extended. I found the three book references in 15 minutes and added them. Feel free to add more and to build the entry out. Dsp13 (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One short entry in the Who's who in Gay and Lesbian History and then 2 other stories all by the same author and a short reference to his figure skating book doesn't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spent another minute looking, and found a thesis on his trial. Added. (Do feel free to add references yourself, Mztourist.) Dsp13 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There was significant coverage of his trial, conviction, royal pardon and exile in contemporary newspapers; also his role in the history of figure skating Piecesofuk (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then add them. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added two contemporary newspaper references and link to Old Bailey trial transcription Piecesofuk (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was nice and helpful for you to add them. But just so you know - when Mz tells you to do that, it's not as though your adding them (or not adding them) affects this afd. It is sufficient for purposes of the afd for you to have identified them here. --2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets GNG. I am not familiar with a rule that requires that we only consider one RS per author. Is that a real rule, or a fake rule? Has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as discussed above. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources all by the same author indicates an author with a fixation on the subject and should be viewed accordingly, it is not the same as three separate sources. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify where in wp policy this is stated? Or if it is not policy, is this perhaps a non-wp-policy personal view, that should be weighed accordingly? Also, why do you presume that the mental state of one who writes three articles on a subject is one of "a fixation?" Freud, I believe, wrote a number of books on the same subject - and whether or not he had a fixation (I don't see how we would determine it from that), I am unclear what wp policy would lead us to not view them as significant .. just because he wrote three or more. Thank you. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything has a policy, its obvious that three sources by the same author (only one of which is a book) are not the same as three sources by separate authors. Freud is a ridiculous comparison, Rictor Norton is described as a specialist on gay history so for him early gays will be "a fixation". Create an account, I am tired of debating with your changing IPs. Mztourist (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as this is a discussion in which policy is important, thank you for clarifying that it is not a wp policy, but just your personal opinion. I have many opinions of my own, but I don't think they would matter much here. Feel free to assume that the IP discussions here have all been the IP who voted keep above. Best wishes on getting some rest. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Hines book listed in the References section has several pages about Jones' book, which was the first published book about figure skating. Jones describes the spiral, an early figure skating element. There also this source from Smithsonian Magazine: [2]. Yes, it needs work, but there are enough sources out there to warrant the article's continuing existence. Keep the verification tag. I've been working on figure skating articles the past few years; I'll put this article on my watchlist and promise to eventually get to it. Wow, imagine: a bio about a gay figure skater that needs improvement. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of reliable sources now. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:32, 11 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. Tone 10:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Boy (musician)[edit]

Danny Boy (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Web sources are limited to blogs and social media, music download sites, reproductions of this short piece, and mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Many of these sites make reference to the subject's up-and-coming status; in other words, it's probably too soon for Wikipedia to have an article on him. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 11:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 11:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 11:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been corrected/updated with more verified information and sources following the above stated faults with the previous version of the article.Elijah Enike (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Elijah Enike: the sources you've included fall considerably below what's needed to show that the article subject has received significant, reliably-published, independent coverage. In fact, quite a few of the sources just copy each other: compare this and this, this and this, and this and this. That isn't the basis for a Wikipedia article. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — As one who has lived in Nigeria for 20+ years I cannot say I’ve ever heard of this chap. He fails to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. @SuperMarioMan, what should really piss you off (of which I’m surprised you aren’t pissed at) is the blatant COI/UPE going on here. They claim the image in the article as their “own work” that’s as shady as they come. Celestina007 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Surely its not everyone you must have heard of @Celestina007, the views expressed by @Celestina007 depicts the article being judged based on personal experience, or views. @SuperMarioMan However I would like to point out some reliable sources used as citations on the article, and also the notable collaboration of a "Known Chap" (artist: Yung L). in addition, the musician in question is verified on Facebook and well known, if not to all as @Celestina007 stated but to a majority.Elijah Enike (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment —@Elijah Enike, if they have made a substantial contributions to the Nigerian music Industry I must definitely know them. Please read WP:PAID & WP:COI & kindly explain to us how you got the image on the article as your “own work”. Your sarcasm is duly noted & I definitely do not appreciate it, if you refuse to disclose how you got the image, I’d have no option but to report you for undisclosed paid editing & using Wikipedia as a means of promotion & make sure you are permanently blocked from editing here any further. Lastly, your client, doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER thus isn’t deserving of a standalone article at the moment. Also, being verified on Facebook isn’t a yardstick for ascertaining notability on this collaborative project, but WP:GNG is, of which clearly you haven’t read, look If you continue down this path of undisclosed paid editing you are definitely getting blocked & that isn’t a threat but a factual statement. Celestina007 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll add that collaborating with another musician means just as little, since notability is not inherited from the people that an article subject has worked with. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Celestina007, Firstly I want to state that any words that might have been taken as hostility and have vexed you were not in any way intended, I also apologize for my sarcastic statements. Secondly, addressing the issue of the image, as explained on my Talk Page; It is as a result of poor understanding of policies as a newbie editor, I humbly seek your guidance in the correction of such errors and in general the betterment of my obviously poor editing skills. I understand the above explained WP:PAID & WP:COI. I have never been paid directly or indirectly for any Edits neither will I accept any future payments from anyone. I signed up on Wikipedia to help improve it and the society at large just like you. all my contributions on articles so far have all been factual and unbiased, I only stated the Facebook status because I thought it could be used as a source or reference that shows the prominence of the said person, apparently that is wrong and I apologize. I understand the article does not meet the criteria's to be included in List of Nigerian Musicians but I beg a thorough review for standalone article, I hope to have at least persuaded you to stop using the terms client and collaborative projects in your next reply, Thanks :).Elijah Enike (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page on Facebook for virtually everything and new pages can be created by anyone, so the fact that this musician is on Facebook (along with countless other musicians) is completely irrelevant as far as establishing notability is concerned. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 11:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not satisfy MUSICBIO by any stretch. I agree with the nominator’s and Celestina007‘s rationales. —Kbabej (talk) 06:42, 7 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) 14:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horlah Oladeji[edit]

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

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

An apparent autobiography on a footballer that does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL; the best source is this, which is way short of the mark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Fatzaof (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helen (charles)[edit]

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

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

Article fails WP:N. There is a lack of WP:BESTSOURCES as well. The articles sources rely on extracts from a couple of published books Angryskies (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Neither of the sources are her books, so I fail to understand the nominator's logic. Books published by academic presses are generally considered high quality sources, and one of them is her biographical entry from the Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture, a biographical dictionary, which certainly supports the subject's notability. pburka (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per pburka. (However, as the author of the page I should declare likely bias.) Dsp13 (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. We tend to keep authors published by major, notable printers. Capital is a coward, and would not publish someone who won't be important or a money-maker. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 8 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) 14:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Mamman[edit]

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

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

Nothing coming up for "Ibrahim Mamman" or "Ibrozinii" or "Mamman Kolo Ibrahim" at all. I could not verify the claims that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL during a WP:BEFORE search and, judging by the complete lack of coverage, am of the belief that he fails WP:GNG also. The article is also written like a CV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same here, nothing found to establish GNG or NFOOTY. A peacock article of a non-notable footballer playing in an amatuer league in Ukraine. JW 1961 Talk 22:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per all above fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Pilean (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This could be a speedy deletion criterion G5: the article was created by a sockpuppet of a editor evading blocks on at least two earlier accounts, but I prefer to call it a WP:SNOW deletion. JBW (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of channel numbers for PBS[edit]

List of channel numbers for PBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia isn't a guide. And it certainly isn't a TV guide. This is utterly unencyclopedic. CUPIDICAE💕 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect/delete to existing article List of PBS member stations. Dan08888888, there's a reason this was moved to a Draft: it's obviously a draft! One incomplete table is not an article! And you failed to adequately check if this content already existed. Reywas92^Talk 22:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and redirect to List of PBS member stations per A10. While incomplete is not grounds for speedy deletion, nor is this unencyclopedic per se, it is effectively a recreation of List of PBS member stations. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, no redirect. This isn't what Wikipedia is for, and there are so many definitions of 'channel number' to the layman (it is cable, satellite, on broadcast, the Internet?) that a redirect to the List of would only further confusion. Nate • (chatter) 23:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Also concerned that it could meet G5 of the criteria for speedy deletion - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Logo08. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 00:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after 7 days discussion, unless the G5 is in effect. Why are we in such a hurry to delete stuff speedily? Does Speedy Delete mean WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This issue is this is likely a sock who is bent on creating chaos and has vandalized several PBS, PBS-adjacent, and PBS member station articles. Also...the actual channel numbers aren't even placed in the article, so it doesn't even fulfill its proposed article focus. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per...everything, but I don't think this constitutes a G5. It's a little borderline and I can see good arguments, but G5 is pretty overused for things that aren't directly aspects of the blocked/banned user's abuse. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - list of lesser imortantance: WP:NOT, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY; also, as suggested above may be deliberate disruption. Eagleash (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTTVGUIDE; I would also be opposed to a redirect Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete As per all above, doesn't meet the notability criteria. Pilean (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Richard Nicholls Podcast[edit]

The Richard Nicholls Podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

From the NPP queue: article about a podcast series that I don’t think has the in-depth coverage in RIS that would demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references on the article are all either minor mentions, primary or promotional. My search did not find anything to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 15:24, 11 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) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Mansfield (cricketer)[edit]

John Mansfield (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer about whom there are no in-depth sources. Did not play first-class cricket and so fair CRIC spectacularly. There are no realistic options for any other sources given the time frame in which he played.

Ashley-Cooper (source can be viewed here) lists the name J Mansfield in four lists of players who played in specific matches in 1749, but has no other information at all about him and he does not feature in the brief biographies Ashley-Cooper produced of some players. Haygarth does no more and the information in the other source (self-published by the article creator) is simply extrapolated from these. No where does either source say that he was a "good batsman" or "adept" at single-wicket cricket and he does not give any sides for the match in 1747 (pg. 51) and there is no list on CricketArchive, for example. This is despite Ashley-Cooper being specifically cited as a source for this by a sock of the article creator. Has no profile on either CricInfo or CricketArchive, we know nothing about him, he never played in a notable match and there is no hope of finding anything else out about him. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another in a long line of articles which would have a place on a specialist Fandom site, but not here. RobinCarmody (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per RobinCarmody. Doesn't have significant notability to be kept on Wikipedia. Pilean (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as he did not play in a first-class match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 10 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) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-dimensional model of leadership[edit]

Multi-dimensional model of leadership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Most of the citations are publications by Packinthan Chelladurai, so they are not independent indications of notability (and he himself currently doesn't have an article so it's not suitable to redirect). I didn't find any substantial independent coverage of the model on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable model. Pilean (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have never original research. The page is so poorly written that it would need to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 8 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) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Small[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another cricket player who does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wholly non-notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 15:40, 6 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. Tone 10:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cuthill[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Once again, English cricketers are a different beast and if there is further information available about them it will probably be easier to find than those from non-English speaking countries. Bobo. 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete once again we should not show special deference, that would lead to systemic bias in our coverage. There is nothing to suggest GNG is met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sufficient references, Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely non-notable, and arguments that justify and defend systematic bias shouldn't be given weight. RobinCarmody (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players - can't see him passing GNG but his name is still a plausible search term and redirect should be considered Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:37, 10 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) 14:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Hussain (Assam cricketer)[edit]

Zakir Hussain (Assam cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable cricketer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:34, 5 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) 14:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SR Kale[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A non-notable cricketer. Rondolinda (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Current stats doesn't passes WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater 17:46, 11 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. Tone 10:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ningbonese people[edit]

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

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

Undersourced article. This is neither a notable ethnicity nor a nationality. Prisencolin (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can be shown that this is not a WP:CFORK. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move. It is really a list not a regular article. If you look at the article history, you will see that the page was formerly named "List of people from Ningbo", and that's what the page really is. It is linked from Ningbo to serve that function. Note that "List of people from <place>" pages are quite commonplace (Category:Lists of people by location) and there's no reason to single out this one for deletion. I agree that there's no evidence showing that Ningbonese people are a meaningful ethnic group; to the extent that the lead section or info box give a misleading impression in that regard, they can be edited. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not a much prose on this article as I had remembered in the past... I suppose a simple rename could be in order.-- Prisencolin (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a term that the article does not have enough sources to demonstrate that it is actually a notable term worth having an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 8 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) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Velloor[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG: while Velloor appears to have had a successful career, I was unable to find any independent coverage about him. Previously, this was a redirect to an entry at List of Indians in Singapore, but if Velloor is found to fall short of notability guidelines he should be removed from that list as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. Even for a newspaper of record, an associate editor is not per se notable. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References on article are primary or minor, fails WP:GNG my search did not find anything to add. No claims in the article that imply notability. Jeepday (talk) 15:30, 11 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 Street or road name#Z Street. Tone 10:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z Street[edit]

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

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

This page doesn't disambiguate any existing articles. Previously it was a redirect to Streets and highways of Washington, D.C., which was also inappropriate as there is no Z Street in Washington DC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, probably to Street or road name#Z Street, changing my "!vote" per my comments far below. --Doncram (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Was "Keep". This is the Zth in a series of sensible disambiguation pages, A Street (disambiguation) to Z Street (disambiguation), recently developed out by me. Deleting just one undermines the usefulness of the set, would seem picky for the sake of being picky, about the fact that there is not right at this moment a separate article about any one Z Street that I am aware of. (There may well be an article about an avenue/street also known as Z Street which I haven't yet found.) There are in fact fewer "Z Street"s than there are any other letter-named streets, I presume, because there are only so many streets needed in a sequence sometimes. Washington, D.C. for example has letters A through Z except for J, X, Y, Z. It appears to me that Sacramento, California's series runs up to "Y Street" then there is "1st Ave.", at least now in the current street configuration I can see in Google maps.
• "Z Street"s are nonetheless found in numerous cities, including:

• Dallas, Texas
• Washougal, Washington
• Vancouver, Washington
• San Diego, California
• Beale Air Force Base, California
• and many more in U.S. and elsewhere.

Having a disambiguation page allows for, indeed calls for, links to be added to articles about individual neighborhoods or about the collections of streets in a city where a given Z Street is covered.

It also allows for mentions of related topics like E Street Band and E Street (television show) which no doubt often are known as simply "E Street", etc. For Z, there is at least one Z Street Band (the one in Orlando, Florida grabbed the url of that name) which might be linked in the future.

Perhaps the Z Street Lofts (currently a redlink) in Vancouver, Washington are in fact notable and also happen to be commonly known as "Z Street".

There also exists use of term "Z Street" to mean a Zionist group (I am not linking to the usage here, I not sure if it is meant positively or if it is a pejorative label applied by others), probably relating to well-known/influential Jewish lobbying organization J Street (advocacy group) (named for the "J Street" omitted from Washington, D.C.'s layout, somewhat of a pun on K Street which often/usually refers to plethora of corporate lobbying firms traditionally located on K Street in Washington, D.C.).

There already do exist, or there will exist, notable usages of "Z Street" explicitly. It would seem obstinate or unhelpful or something like that, for Wikipedia to delete this disambiguation page in advance. See wp:TNTTNT, an essay to which I contributed, re: folly/unhelpfulness of deleting an article only for it to be recreated.

By the way, I like that the deletion nominator appreciates replacement of former redirect from "Z Street" to "Streets of Washington, D.C." which notes there is no Z Street there. A disambiguation page is more appropriate.

--Doncram (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, searching in Google News for "Z Street" brings up many usages, a few of which are:

• Lompoc, California, in Santa Maria Times article
• Level Plains, Alabama, in Southeast Sun article
• Performance of Z Street Band in this YourObserver.com article
• Wall Street Journal opinion piece re: Z Street organization known as "Z Street" (here, behind a paywall so I can't read it). Opinion piece is titled "The IRS Campaign Against Israel—and Us: It took seven years for Z Street to learn the truth about why our tax-exempt status was delayed." And there is related article in Times of Israel noting a settlement that "includes apology from IRS to Z Street".

It is looking to me that this group is Wikipedia-notable. Must a stub article on that be created, to fend off this AFD? Although would seem like tail wagging dog. And I personally don't think that a new article about the pro-Israel group should get to grab "Z Street" wikipedia article name, on basis that I personally think there is not world-wide common usage, that persons world-wide are quite likely looking for info on a street or band or other thing near them, instead.

Just keep the dab, dabbit! --Doncram (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - pointless disambiguation page that is eligible for deletion under WP:G14, as are many other of this series --John B123 (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - changed !vote to redirect to Street or road name#Z Street.

• Speedy Delete per above. We don't need to disambiguate when there are no articles to disambiguate, especially since it is unlikely that such distinction will ever be needed. Mangoe (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Doncram We actually have an entire policy page on this type of situation, at Wikipedia:Write the article first. Once you have actually written more than one article about Z Street, then we can talk about this disambiguation page. Until then, there is not reason to exist. With all that said, this qualifies for speedy delete as a page ending in (disambiguation) that only links to one article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page does not list articles that might otherwise be titled "Z Street" (WP:DPAGE). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Well, spurred by this, Draft:Z Street (organization) is in the works and should become a mainspace article soon. I personally consider it to be a marginal entity, seemingly Wikipedia-notable largely due to the IRS inappropriately denying its application for nonprofit status for seven years, related to it having pro-Israel views. To me it would seem inappropriate to give it star billing as the one and only "Z Street" in Wikipedia, when Z Street is a somewhat common term / name of a street. Or the Z Street Band based in Orlando, Florida, probably also known for short as "Z Street" could get the star billing inappropriately if someone chose to develop an article about it....it appears marginally notable to me as well.

Also the dab currently includes bluelinks Z Street (Portland, Oregon) and Z Street (Washington, D.C.) which are redirects to articles which, indeed, wouldn't properly be titled "Z Street", but rather cover Reed Street the end of the alphabet line in Portland and the non-existence of J, X, Y, Z in Washington, D.C.

By the way, I believe that "X Street" was mostly avoided in practice due to its appearing to be a reference to Jesus Christ. That is stated somewhere in the Washington DC streets coverage, and I suspect it is the reason why Portland Oregon gave its "Xth" street a different name. There are certainly many usages of both X and Z though. It seems to me that it is helpful for Wikipedia to have coverage on "Z Street" and "X Street" and other names, as names, and I think that comes in the form of a disambiguation page. Either naturally or awkwardly or as an abomination inciting strong emotions, depending on one's views. --Doncram (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a street in Portland, Oregon that has never existed[3] seems pointess, so Z Street (Portland, Oregon) is now up for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#Z Street (Portland, Oregon). --John B123 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are no actual articles being disambiguated here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ultimately this is a page that disambiguates zero articles. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G14. There's nothing here, zip, nada. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a DAB page. Deleting this does not undermine other X Street dab pages at all. ----Pontificalibus 13:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thanks everyone, this has been very helpful discussion. It would have been more helpful if anyone else had thought to try to grapple with the actual problem, that "Z Street" and similar article names in Wikipedia should not be given over to just any minor usage which might be claimed (e.g. for a band or a political organization). Nor should all of these go to the article/section about street naming in just the city of Washington, D.C. This has to do with principles of avoiding reader surprise, and what is to be done when there is no specific wp:PRIMARYUSAGE present. The answer is not to avoid the problem. What is needed is some kind of bland dead end, like what a disambiguation page can provide, with bland allusion to the true general fact that "Z Street" or similar is a street name used in many cities, and there is no one overwhelming world-wide primary topic single usage. BUT NO, that would blow the minds of editors hyper-focused on disambiguation pages and their (dysfunctional, unfriendly-to-readers in my opinion) rules. So, one alternative would be to use wp:SIA "Set Index Article" system which was created originally and expressly to extract certain disambiguation pages from the hyper-focused editors. Just slap ((SIA)) on a page and drop disambiguation identification, and then it is okay to use words and sources/footnotes and to provide common-sense text and lists of items to serve Wikipedia readers. I mused about doing just that, but the disambiguation-focused editors, once all riled up, are hard to dissuade. After a while, I come around to thinking that a new big article on street naming and numbering, as covered in this American Planning Association report "Street naming and numbering", and covering each of "Z Street", "Y Street", etc. there would be better. And it turns out we do have Street or road name article, not the greatest since sliced bread, but can be adapted. So see now Street or road name#Lettered and numbered streets, which is a suitable target section, and where I have set up anchors for "Z Street", etc. So redirecting "Z Street" to Street or road name#Z Street seems okay, and I have done that.--Doncram (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonsense. If there is a notable topic titled "Z Street" which happens to be e.g. "a band or a political organization" then that should be located at this page. This wouldn't be "giving over to just any minor usage which might be claimed" it would be a notable topic. Should any street named Z Street become notable then an article can be created for it and a dab page placed here. There are over 2,000 streets in the UK called "Station Road" yet only one of them is listed at Station Road. This isn't misleading, it's how readers expect an encyclopedia to work - only listing notable instances of a topic.----Pontificalibus 07:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Ready to close i think, with fact that the article has been redirected to Street or road name#Z Street. --Doncram (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I support changing to a redirect, I'm not sure doing so whilst this discussion is still in progress is appropriate. --John B123 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is hard to let go, I understand. Victory should be more like pummelling me with 20 or more templates on my Talk page (already done), and complaining wildly/widely because I asked you to stop with that and discuss somewhere centrally instead, and further gathering up a mob to score AFD deletions. Accomplishing violations of Wikipedia's fundamental policies (see wp:TNTTNT) by deleting stuff which will likely be recreated later (when a couple "Z Street" articles have eventually been created). --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The problem with this redirect that has now been but in place is that the target contains no cited use of the term. Someone may spend some considerable time scouring the section targeted by the redirect and following up the sources, only to discover that there is no notable Z-street. Far better to delete and thus make this obvious.--07:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Al Masri[edit]

Abdulrahman Al Masri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has been tagged as a notability concern for over 11 years now. There is no clear proof that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. The one source contains very little info and his Kooora page only shows a goal in two youth matches and a friendly. Unfortunately, Kooora only displays games in which the player scored a goal and doesn't list the appearance otherwise. It's possible that he may pass NFOOTBALL but, without proper evidence, this cannot be assumed. I'm also concerned about WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:24, 6 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 and rename. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Jaime, Count of Bardi[edit]

Prince Jaime, Count of Bardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of being notable. Makes a big play of being royal in a long dead royal house. Fails WP:BIO. Possibly notable via the UNHCR. scope_creep^Talk 20:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Jaime de Bourbon de Parme. He's notable but not under the current puff name. gidonb (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: Notable in what way? scope_creep^Talk 02:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the WP:GNG way. No need to argue, this nomination will fail miserably. This is where I AGREE with you: it is unfair that people enherit titles and get coverage and appointments based on linneage. WP cannot resolve that. As an encyclopedia, we are descriptive, not prescriptive. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At The Italian Wikipedia, for the same article is at Afd: [4] The same rationale for delete is being made there, principally that the royal house is long dead, from 1851. It is a null career. He is not a royal prince. Hope that helps! scope_creep^Talk 02:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Jaime de Bourbon de Parme. There seem to be plenty of independent reliable sources[5] confirming that he is a notable Dutch diplomat, under that name. DrKay (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename: Per Plenty of coverage in a Google News search with just the diplomat's full name Jaime de Bourbon de Parme. VocalIndia (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Gidonb: I wasn't arguing. I never saw the diplomat thing. I figured it would be UNHCR stuff. scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:scope_creep, then how about withdrawing because of this WP:BEFORE error? gidonb (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could do, if somebody wants to volunteer to do the work. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which work? gidonb (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I guess, and de-puff it. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:scope_creep, if you withdraw and do not close, the person who closes will deal with the renaming. That is a perfectly reasonable expectation from anyone who closes and from the direction of this discussion. If the article is not written from an NPOV perspective, just put the correct template on the article. AfDs are not meant for article improvement! If we tie these, we get too many AfDs. We do already! gidonb (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn. Please close. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:GNG; then move. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Money-Coutts, 9th Baron Latymer[edit]

Crispin Money-Coutts, 9th Baron Latymer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article on a British peer does not have good sourcing. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found anything to add. I do not think he meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The current seven sources are:

• an article on a site called TheOceans.net, unsure if it is reliable;
• a link to his book on Amazon;
• a review of his daughter's novel, doesn't mention him
• another review of his daughter's novel, doesn't mention him
• an article by his daughter, mentions him in passing
• another article by his daughter, does not mention him
• an interview with his daughter and ex-wife, mentions him in passing Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERETED. Shankargb (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As he has an entry in UK Who's Who Piecesofuk (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV. There's enough coverage, between the Telegraph and Who's Who. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There seems to be enough significant coverage to pass BIO.TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We should actually try to complete this important English historical set. The Wikidata page's Identifiers has more useful info. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 08:53, 10 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) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LiveATC.net[edit]

LiveATC.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find any reliable independent secondary sources which discuss the topic in depth. There's a lot of passing mentions, but that's about it. Tagged for needing better sources for 10 years, but apparently nobody's found any since then either. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: seems to only contain WP:PROMO content. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:55, 5 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) 14:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chien Chih-hsiang[edit]

Chien Chih-hsiang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP of a politician that does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the minor office city councilor he held would make him anywhere near notable according to NPOL.VocalIndia (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looking through Chinese-language sources it appears to be enough to pass WP:GNG. Additionally, the city he represents has a population of 2 million people, the fifth largest in Taiwan.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The sole current source isn't even about him. If you're going to claim sources exist, please rescue the article and put them in. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The inclusion bar for city councillors is not "Xth largest city in its own country", but "internationally prominent global city on the order of London, New York City, Paris, Berlin or Toronto" — but Taoyuan is not one of those, and single-sourcing that a municipal councilor exists is not enough to make him more special than all the other non-global city councillors who don't have articles even though they can all also be single-sourced as existing. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked through the references on the other language page Things there are minor mentions. If Prisencolin wants to point out a couple of references from their search that are not minor mentions I would be happy to change my vote. As it stands there is no indication the subject meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG; fails WP:NPOL. STSC (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many Taiwanese students in my institute know him. zh.wiki shows sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. en.wiki needs more references.--NeujorK (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment NeujorK Can you indicate 2 or more sources that meet WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." All is see is minor mentions. Jeepday (talk) 12:57, 12 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 Otago representative cricketers. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brady[edit]

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

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

Profile article. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reading WP:BIO, under sports people, he passes the notability ("...person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition..") having played in first-class cricket matches. This section links to WP:NSPORT, which states at the top of the page "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", and below there is the critieria for WP:NCRIC. At worst, per WP:ATD-R, redirect back to the List of Otago representative cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have clearly rejected the hogwash idea that every "first class" cricket match play makes someone default notable. This article clearly fails the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Lugnuts: This is really poor quality, a profile article, due to the fact the sourcing itself comes from a profile. Why would a sports person likely come to read this article, when the profile itself has more information than this article. It would seem that the person would more likely go to the sports page to find the information, as there is more detail. What is point of it? scope_creep^Talk 21:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could argue that with ANY stub, not just those for sportspeople. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange how often people imply that article upkeep is just a single person's job. If people had any interest in working on Wikipedia they would help with creating and fostering articles, not destroying them. The fact that the articles which come up for deletion are mostly the work of either myself, AA, 02blythed, Jack, or Lugnuts, shows that we display dedication to the project where others lack such. Bobo. 16:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very-low quality article. scope_creep^Talk 17:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve it instead of sending it to AfD. Bobo. 18:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude it is junk. I suspect it would take more than the combined effort of all the editors in Wikipedia to improve these small profile articles, particularly since there are reams of other articles on people, that are far more important in the scheme of things and yet, their articles still need to be improved. It is obvious you don't think it is important even to try to create small stub articles of 5k that are properly sourced with in-line cites, at the same time that everybody is told when they arrive in here, to create articles with in-line cites. They are taught it in high school. So why are you not doing it? It has less information than the profile. scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't complain by assuming every article needs to be a one-person job if you can't stop it from being "junk". Bobo. 18:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One sentence, and only one reference. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge/redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. If we don't have any sources beyond wide ranging statistical databases, then we shouldn't have a standalone article. Trivially passes NCRIC, so gets a very weak presumption of notability, but that cannot be proven without substantial sources so this has to go. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Nominator's searches turned up no significant coverage, nor did mine. If his two-match career were truly notable, one would expect some significant coverage to be available. Finally, the article is currently a micro-stub, so that its deletion results in no material loss -- if some diligent researcher later develops the requisite coverage, the article can easily be re-created if and when warranted. Cbl62 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I started noticing that these cricket articles make up a large percentage of the entries at Cat:NN. There is insufficient information contained in each one to verify if it is notable. It must confuse an awful lot of NPP reviewers, as there are hundreds of them. An example is James Hume (cricketer). Admittedly many were created over a decade ago and now being found and categorised, some created much sooner. scope_creep^Talk 10:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Notre Dame. The Keep rationales appear to mainly be that there has been significant national coverage of the council, which as pointed out is not relfected in the article. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Club Coordination Council[edit]

Notre Dame Club Coordination Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Typical school body organization, almost wholly sourced through primary sourcing. The non-primary sourcing is mere mentions, with no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions–Cupper52^Discuss! 19:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be some small school club that made it onto a local news station, this does not warrant an article and should be deleted. This is no different than creating an article for every other student council at any other random school. Stonksboi (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Council has been the subject of national controversy, which has received significant coverage^[1][2] from sources independent of the Council itself. While the article could use some work in expounding upon that, which I plan to do in the coming days, I do not believe that deletion is warranted at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehawk10 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to article on the University of Notre Dame, sub-section on student government. This is an integral part of the student government organization at Notre Dame. The coverage is not enough to justify a unique article, and it is really framed as seeing the actions of this council as reflecting to policy of the university as a whole.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the merge.Eccekevin (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This article seems to describe an organization that gives more than just mere mentions, but provides in-depth coverage of its actions. As such, it easily satisfies the notability criteria. There is no reason why this discussion should take place. I agree with Mikehawk10 that the controversies should be expanded upon on the page, since those controversies are clearly notable, having received widespread national press attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155blue (talk • contribs) 06:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The number of sources seems convincing. I do believe it needs more work, but a speedy deletion should not take place. Eccekevin (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it sounds like the Council of Organizations at my alma mater, SUNY New Paltz. I'm not clear about its notability, so no !vote. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• redir/merge back to the university article. When I was an undergrad at the University of Maryland forty years ago, we had an SGA which had pretty much the same function and generated similar controversy coverage every year; I haven't looked at The Diamondback since, but I don't doubt that the same thing continues. The one genuinely notable thing was the time the Monarchist Party won the elections, which made national news. Nothing said in the article rises above local interest or routinely reported material about Notre Dame's student life. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I believe that the analysis presented by Stonksboi misleading. SB writes that "Seems to be some small school club that made it onto a local news station", which seems to not reflect the sources in the article, which include national news sources that cover its controversies in depth. None of the sources are to local TV or radio stations, so I don't really see where the editor is coming from. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to University of Notre Dame, though a plausible search term, actually it has received very little traction according to page views. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compass (iOS)[edit]

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

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

This app is a simple, preloaded tool. What makes it warrant its own article? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 18:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 18:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, per WP:G7. Sole author blanked the article. NJD-DE (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under G7. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:58, 6 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) 14:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Lay[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG; I could not find any significant coverage in independent sources on Lay, only passing mentions in match reports and the like. Still an active player but only at a very low level. The best source that I could find was this, which is short of the mark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet GNG or football notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A non-notable footballer. I didn't found any significant coverage in independent sources.Rondolinda (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 07:35, 7 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 have been no objection to Dan arndt's improvements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Thomas' College, Kotte[edit]

St. Thomas' College, Kotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was created in March 2017, the same month it was tagged for notability and sources. Fails NSCHOOL and GNG. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 17:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 17:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Poor article with no references which was given up on about 3 years ago. --Excutient^Talk 23:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and my own standards. This school is not yet 100 years old, and while I could find a few references online to its cricket team, I found zero newspaper articles on Google, and there's not much else out there. Please ping me if you can find better sources. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I have added numerous secondary sources - now satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. I would have to say it wasn't too hard to find adequate sources/references. Dan arndt (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject does not have SIGCOV from IS RS with direct and indepth coverage demonstrating notablity for either GNG or showing significance per NBUILD. Sources in the article are mentions, nothing that amounts to SIGCOV. Events such as anniversaries and sports teams articles do not show notability by themselves. 18:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I fail to see why extensive coverage of the school's anniversaries in several national newspapers is not considered significant by some editors. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Like most large high schools, this passes WP:GNG.--Pontificalibus 12:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hattiesburg Black Sox[edit]

Hattiesburg Black Sox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable semi-professional baseball team. I'm not convinced the passing mention in a book mentioned in the previous AFD discussion from 12 years ago is sufficient. Never competed in the Negro major leagues, and a quick searches for sources seems WP:ROUTINE. Penale52 (talk) 17:57, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 5 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. Tone 10:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Mohammad Imran[edit]

Sheikh Mohammad Imran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional borderline G11 eligible article for a non notable businessman who fails to satisfy WP:ANYBIO & a politician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL. In summary, they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus a WP:GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the matter i have given you all the references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedishujaat (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Hello i have given you all the references regarding the former mayor of srinagar you can find the references on the page or on google for cross check — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedishujaat (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Deputy mayor of a city is not an "inherently" notable role that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, and the article fails to demonstrate any compelling reason to deem him more special than the norm for that level of significance. Being charged with, but not verifiably convicted of, a crime does not make a person notable under WP:PERP in and of itself, and there's no other indication of his potential significance here beyond documenting that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay do whatever you feel is right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.95.82.63 (talk) 13:18, 11 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) 14:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Sollars[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of the mayor of a smallish city, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. This is written differently enough from the first version to not be eligible for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but has not substantially changed the case for notability: mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist, and the article still does not cite enough coverage to get him over the bar. As well, even the media coverage that is present is being used entirely to support content about him being indicted with a crime -- but under WP:PERP, a mere criminal charge without conviction is not enough in and of itself to make a person encyclopedically notable. So while this isn't speediable, it still hasn't done enough to make him keepable. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable small time mayor. The fact that we have to dig into op-eds to find even something as simple as his party is pretty telling about the lack of coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 17:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per the well detailed rationale provided by Bearcat. It’s crystal clear this is an NPOL fail. Celestina007 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In metro Detroit Taylor is in no way a major city. Basically this guy is only getting any attention because he has been charged with a crime, he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:NPOL. We tend to delete articles about suburban mayors and council members. At 63,000 resident or so, this city is not so large as to create per se notability. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 8 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) 14:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Trussell[edit]

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

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