< February 05	February 07 >

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guide (Adventist magazine)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus was not reached with the last deletion discussion, and I still think this magazine is not notable. Per Devonian Wombat: “no one has actually shown that this magazine passes WP:GNG, only one source has been found which actually contributes to notability, with the rest being either primary sources, passing mentions or not actually about the subject. As a result, this magazine still fails GNG.” Dronebogus (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) I note the one source clearly identified in the previous AfD has not been added to the article. 2) There is ISBN 978-0828027304 which appears to be a 'greatest hits' compilation published by separate (but likely also SDA affiliated) publishing house, which appears to be commercially available and held by a handful of libraries per WorldCat. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the addition of the book source (directly about the subject) we now have two sources showing substantial coverage so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- A specialist magazine which has been published for 67 years is worth having an article on, even if there are relatively few truly independent sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 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) 10:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Exorcist[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. The only source I could find that would qualify as reliable in the context of horror films, is the Dread Central review present in the article, but even with that, we're lacking the multiple requirement of the GNG.

It is also worth noting that the chief article builders, RadheSlate and CursedSoulFromIndia were the same person operating two accounts, and have since been blocked for sockpuppetry. They have a very narrow focus of interest, and I think that this article was created to promote the films of Faisal Saif, which could suggest either UPE or COI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM, there are some blog-like reviews out there [[1]], [[2]], etc. but probably will not be enough to pass GNG IMO. Kolma8 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dread Central appears to be a reputable source for horror film reviews according to NinjaRobotPirate, but not that Wordpress site. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:09, 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) 10:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wynn Bagnall[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Having a sculpture made of you doesn't make you notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is the sculpture notable in its own right? If so, this article could be the basis for an article on it. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, though as noted above the statue modelled on him may be notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with or without a redirect to James Earle Fraser (sculptor) the statue is listed there with a red link. Many of the reference links on Wynn Bagnall are dead, but the look more like minor mentions to me. My search for references for the statue did not find enough to show notability, If it does or not would be up to whom ever wants to write an article. As for WP:SOLDIER I don't see any way the subject passes it. Jeepday (talk) 17:53, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Nath[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article and contains sources that mention the subject in passing. This article was previously deleted through AFD for lacking WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS and I still can't see any sources that address the subject directly and in detail. Fails WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The TEDx speaking is what puts it in keep category for me. Peter303x (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wrongly nominated for deletion. checked all information he is the national jury in Govt if India and state mentor in Govt of Uttar Pradesh. all references are given already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CM2021 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Struck disruptive edit, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pooja Shree Gaur. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pooja Shree Gaur
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell, individual's claim to notability is membership on a jury for a minor Indian government program. The other claim, that he has spoken at a TEDx event is not inherently notable, as they can be hosted by anyone who gets a free license from TED, and thus anybody can be invited. Fails GNG IMHO. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 01:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, I was tricked [3] into closing this as a close by the nominator after a disruptive editor placed a misleading message [4] closing the discussion as withdrawn. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 01:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just saw this notice ... what I noticed that editors claim deletion because they dont consider him on any one point that he is notible .. but this person who is holding multiple roles at one time which is worth to keep this page. having multiple roles in govt and corporate organization at same time is enough to prove notibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:6007:10C2:B04B:B1E7:6740:D082 (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources offer significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject; failing WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As BrxBrx points out, TEDx is not the same as a TED Talk. TEDx events are licensed, and anyone can set one up; this is distinct from being invited to give a "TED Talk" at the actual TED conference. No other coverage indicates a GNG pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Festival[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:32, 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 speedy delete per CSD A7. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weiyin Chen[edit]

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

BLPProd was removed by Adam9007 so now AfD, No WP:SOURCES found, only external link points to her own homepage CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 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 and redirect to USS Gillette (DE-681). Daniel (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas W. Gillette[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Gillette (DE-681). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg with no significant award) and WP:GNG as no SIGCOV in multiple RS. MilHist consensus: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability is that being a ship namesake does not establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total and complete failures of both our notability guidelines for soldiers and the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khin Thiri Thet Mon[edit]

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

Lacks IMO WP:BIO, no sufficient secondary sources that are reliable AND intellectually independent of each other given after almost 3 days and lot of attention- Justice for Myanmar and The Irrawaddy seem to be mediums of activists. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to these sources she is CEO and founder of her country's largest entertainment company 7th Sense Creation. I don't know what the nominator means by "no reliable sources" - The Irrawaddy is that country's second biggest media after The Myanmar Times and newly created the media Myanmar Now is amazing reliable per article. I've no idea for Justice for Myanmar source. I also saw your biased behavior in her talk page. Why do you putted AfD when that country is in nationalwide Internet shutdown? So because of the nationwide internet shutdown, the number of Burmese language editors is tiny. We should be slow to delete any of it. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both The Irrawaddy and Myanmar Now are major medias in our country and are reliable. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Zin Win Hlaing, The Irrawaddy perhaps is a major media but far away from relaible - Citation: "publication produced by former Burmese activists who fled violent crackdowns on anti-military protests in 1988, it has always been closely associated with the pro-democracy movement" - nothing what I would call reliable here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, back in the days, The Irrawaddy was not an independent media, often acted like the Daily Mail, and did a ton of gossipping to generate sales and survive. But now, The Irrawaddy stands as independent media and a leading source of reliable news. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability of an individual is determined by being subject of coverage in reliable sources rather than what they had done; she is the founder of our country's top entertainment company and this person definitely passes WP:GNG on the sources provided in the articles alone. Also, notability is not inherited. A daughter of the head of state does not make her notable automatically, but she is notable in her own. I don't see how WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Taung Tan (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a decent amount of RS coverage - article needs expansion, not deletion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has sufficient sourcing. Zoozaz1 talk 04:05, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Min-su (footballer, born 1992)[edit]

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

Probably TOOSOON, highest level played is 2nd tier of Slovakia (not on WP:FPL), nothing found that would otherwise establish GNG JW 1961 Talk 19:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon? He is 20 years old and he is playing for a professional Slovak 2nd tier club that aims to play in Slovak Super Liga ASAP. There are A TONS OF PLAYERS that already have their Wikipedia profiles and their highest level was Slovak 2nd tier. 2. Liga (Slovakia) is also a professional league and i dont know why its not included on that list. Filip289 20:25, 6 February 2021

Note The above post was made by User:Filip289 using my signature (see page hisory) JW 1961 Talk 19:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Filip289 if you believe the second tier of Slovakia is fully professional then please produce sources for that and start a discussion at WT:FPL Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 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. If anyone would like the content restored to a user page, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Bartoli[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NRU according to Itsrugby and Super-Liga. As he has only played at U-17 level for France, I wouldn't consider it likely that he will debut soon. A WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any in-depth coverage about this particular Julien Bartoli so does not look to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG. Was named in the most recent international squad for Romania, but their match was cancelled due to COVID. With there being no played internationals for them in the near future that would allow him to pass WP:NRU it seems a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Could potentially be draftifyed but the article has been in main space since early 2018. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I request userfication for this article. Can anyone help me do this? (Gabinho^>:) 07:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete another in a long line of non-notable rugby players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV in his area of sports Jenyire2 05:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanujan Machine[edit]

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

Notability Dermacct (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Four reasons:
1. The scientific topic of this article simply isn't a notable idea in Math or CS. This article is about a very specific symbolic regression/synthesis algorithm that is presented in exactly one peer-reviewed article that was published on Friday of last week. The only other publication mentioning this "Ramanujan Machine" is an arxiv pre-print has attracted only 9 citations in over a year (nb: that's a very low citation count, even for a preprint, in ML/AI).
2. There are very few truly independent descriptions or discussions of this idea in the press or in the scientific literature. All of the press articles linked in the article are non-critical and they all even have the same narrative structure and identical figures. It'd be unsurprising if these articles are all based on the same template -- unfortunately not an uncommon practice these days. There simply aren't a large number of truly independent sources discussing the "Ramanujan Machine".
3. The wikipedia article's original contents contained almost no details about the algorithm, but did contain PR fluff like "The project aims to inspire future generations of mathematicians". Stated simply, I think it's a low-effort article written as part of a broad push to hype up and advertise a paper. I would go so far as calling this article spam. In fact, the only additions to the article containing substantive details about the "Ramanujan Machine" were contributed by a user who agrees with deletion of the article...
4. Even one of the authors of the related paper agrees with deleting this wikipedia page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermacct (talk • contribs)

Delete Going by the scholarly literature alone, it's at best too soon to have an article on this. One just-published paper isn't nearly enough to base an article upon. And even if we had peer-reviewed secondary sources establishing its significance, I doubt it would be due more weight than a few lines in an article like automated theorem proving. The media coverage is churnalism. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With any purported scientific discovery, its actual significance and notability should be judged first by its impact on the scientific discipline in question, as evidenced by independent peer-reviewed published sources there. In this case, the only published peer-reviewed source is the Feb 2021 Nature article by the creators of the concept themselves, and so the source is not independent. There is some coverage from unpublished sources (blogs, preprints), and from popular media. The latter should be discounted at this point, IMO, and treated as WP:NOTNEWS situation. In the absence of independent peer-reviewed coverage, popular and conventional media are not in a position to evaluate the valudity and significance of scientific work. In this case it would appear that the existing popular/conventional media coverage is due to a well designed PR effort by the study's authors. Until and unless there's substantive coverage of the concept by independent published peer-reviewed sources, this seems to me to be a WP:NOTNEWS case. Nsk92 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm one of the authors of the paper. We didn't write this wiki page, and since it has technical mistakes I think that it is important to remove it. We do not want incorrect and misleading information published on the paper or spread via Wikipedia. This Wikipedia page is already cited in other posts as truth and that's problematic. Once some time passes and depending on the follow-up it gets, it may be relevant to reconsider a Wiki page similar to other analogous concepts like this one Automated Mathematician Georgepisha (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the creator of the article with no COI with it. Just because an idea is not accepted by experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal WP:NOTHOWTO WP:NOTLAB. Regardless how worthless/wrong a concept is it may still have encyclopedic value because of the coverage a subject is receiving. And this is the case here. The article meets WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Tabloids have been going gaga over it and it's one more reason why Wikipedia article must be available to present a neutral point of view. Experts can help building the criticism section further using reliable sources. Also, someone connected with a subject requesting deletion is not a vaild deletion argument. RationalPuff (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. "Just because an idea is not accepted by experts" and "Tabloids have been going gaga over it" are both excelent arguments for deleting the article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the statement Experts can help building the criticism section further using reliable sources: no, they can't, because those sources don't exist (yet). It's not Wikipedia's job to promote new research, however interesting it might be. We document research whose significance is already established. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming my 'Delete judgement, addressing each of RationalPuff's points in turn:

Nsk92 addresses the media coverage issue at length. "Going gaga" seems a bit over-stated. A few websites published slightly modified copy of the same article.
The issue isn't whether the results are right/wrong. The issue is that the topic of the article is significant.
A scientist agreeing that their own work is being covered too soon and is not due this amount of weight does strike me as an important consideration. Even if this person's opinion is not a valid deletion argument, the fact that it's the most credible source speaking in either direction is at least evidence that we don't have sufficient secondary sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermacct (talk • contribs)

For clarity's sake, please sign your comments with four tilde's (~~~~), which automatically adds your username and a timestamp. In addition, you can use wiki markup instead of HTML; it saves on brackets. XOR'easter (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A recently hyped new work without evidence of ongoing and lasting interest, or serious independent scholarly attention, so all we have to go on is the hype. That doesn't make for an acceptable article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Dyas[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Non-notable soldier. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting our notability guidelines for soldiers. I applaud the nominator for doing the work to review this article, too often with articles on people in the 19th-century people just assume because we have information the person is for sure notable, which is not actually the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 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.

Suzanne Mallouk[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. I can't weigh the keep arguments very heavily given the solid source analysis & ENT rebuttal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caramel Plug[edit]

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

non-notable person, all the sources are tantamount to gossip, even from Vanguard (which i'll note has no byline) and those that aren't gossip columns are regurgitated press releases. CUPIDICAE💕 17:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ihadarack (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At first glance of the sources used, you’d be almost tempted to erroneously conclude the subject is notable but upon dissecting the sources you’d observe almost all are self published or are pieces written by guest editors. Celestina007 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From what Wikipedia describes as notability, she is notable and sources are also on the page to prove that.Ihadarack (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The subject seems notable as per the sources however they don't seem notable as per elestina007. --Excutient^Talk 23:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify I mean the sources aren't credible --Excutient^Talk 23:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your !vote makes absolutely no sense. Would you or the other keep be so kind as to actually provide at least one independent and in depth source about this person? CUPIDICAE💕 01:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the OPs assessment of the sources. Waggie (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with the OPs assessment of the sources. Although I didn't look at all of them, I didn't feel the need to, there's enough there to meet WP:GNG IMO. WestCD (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as Celestina007 and the nominator mentioned the sources are not at the level to support GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ihadarack (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD I was able to find this significant coverage of her in what appears to be in reliable sources https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-caramel-plug-the-young-comedian-and-social-media-personality-of-2020/ and https://punchng.com/i-always-smile-even-when-sad-caramel-plug/ Dream Focus 22:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC) I am eliminating my vote based on what Celestina007 said. Now I'm not certain of anything. Dream Focus 00:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no those sources are just rehashed press releases chock with misspellings and bad grammar. And the second is an interview with no byline. CUPIDICAE💕 00:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about these two sources, https://www.newtelegraphng.com/caramel-plug-life-and-rise-of-the-20-year-old-social-media-personality-ogechi-ukonu/ and https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-caramel-plug-the-young-comedian-and-social-media-personality-of-2020, they are reliable and independent sources and if you go through the references on the page, you will find more sources like that.Ihadarack (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

newtelegraphng is not a reliable source, it's an attempt to utilize the reputable name of a defunct newspaper New Telegraph. CUPIDICAE💕 19:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — First off, a major kudos to Praxidicae for nabbing this UPE article. As a Nigerian that I am, or at least, one who has lived in Nigeria for 20+ years now, I can say she certainly isn’t notable, a careful review of the sources shows puffery in some sources used indicating that they are a paid for piece. In Nigeria, corruption is the order of the day & even certain “reliable sources” accept financial rewards in exchange for a piece without disclosing this to the readers, thus it is left to us to dissect each piece written by a so-called “reliable source” and discern legit from Paid for. I can say without an iota of doubt that this individual is merely seeking a presence on Wikipedia & paying media outlets to write articles on her. Let us also put in the back of all minds that the creator of this article is a/an single purpose promo only account(feel free to look up their edit history) and haven’t edited any other thing/article asides this particular one. Add two & two & the answer is right before your very eyes. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have reviewed the sources cited on the page carefully and can't find any of the sources that look like a paid piece. Also, there are enough sources on the page to meetWP:GNG.Jacwizy (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you bothered to look at the sources, you would see they clearly do not have editorial oversight and are parroting one another. Or do we now accept sources that don't fact check or even run basic spell checks? Maybe I should get into the business of publishing vanity spam myself. CUPIDICAE💕 18:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since it doesn't appear people are willing to actually read the sources, I've done an analysis:

this is clearly not rs, it's a rehash of a PR submission which is parroted in several sources below.
clearly the same as the above with slight wording changes, it's three paragraphs of the same rehashed material
yet another rehash of previous content specifically this, while worded slightly different, it's the same thing, down to the "millenial" crap
no byline, not a reliable source and basically rehashing the same exact PR nonsense
not rs, not coverage, it's a full on interview, no depth and nothing remotely close to being independent
this is the company she's working for talking about her, not independent, no indication that this is rs and it certainly lacks any meaningful depth
no byline no indication this is independent and like the rest, just rehashed PR gibberish
this is nothing more than self congratulatory puffery CUPIDICAE💕 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the excellent reasoning of Praxidicae and Celestina007. This is much more sophisticated than the usual vanity spam but we should still remove it for now. Maybe Caramel Plug will be notable one day and we can restore her article with some more suitable sources but, for now, the best thing to do is delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Celestina's explanation and Praxidicae's analysis for sources for reliability and signficant coverage. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Bigpencils (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per internet comedian, Instagram comedian, there notability due not rely only on published coverage, some of them may not have viable independent sources but very notable on their sphere, the Category should be specified as internet comedian, it is very different from basic comedy. Author may need to improve on it, specific categories and provide other evidential details to support it.Amosflash (talk)

there notability due not rely only on published coverage, this is simply untrue. Notability relies on independent coverage from reliable sources. If there aren't viable independent sources, they aren't notable and we cannot have an article. CUPIDICAE💕 12:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She meets WP:ENT and if you go through her Instagram page which has a large number of followers, you will see that she has appeared in some television shows, also have some offline sources and collaborations with notable people in her country. No doubt, she is notable.(Creativecreatr (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Comment — @Creativecreatr, I’m afraid you do not understand WP:ENT. For starters, I live in her country, Nigeria (and probably so do you) and she isn’t notable nor does she have a presence here & that’s the long & short of it, for a detailed explanation feel free to read all I have to say;
per #1 she doesn’t satisfy it as she has “no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions”. (A before search confirms this & you are free to counter my claim by producing RS to the contrary)
Per #2 She also doesn’t satisfy , as a faux follower count of 671k is very much negligible and cannot be considered a “cult following” you’d notice I called it a “faux follower count”?? The reason is Nigerian celebrities are in the horrible habit of purchasing followers, a despicable behavior which has been covered severally by reliable media see this, this, & this. I could go on & on but you should get my drift already.
Per#3 “Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment”, Well, She definitely hasn’t made such contributions. (Like I said above you may provide RS to the contrary).

All the aforementioned coupled with the fact that the article creator is an WP:SPA throwaway account, and the fact thus far we haven’t seen at least WP:THREE good sources substantiating nor proving the subject’s alleged notability is indicative of the obvious, which is, she is not notable just yet & those reliable sources do not exist. Lest I forget, I should remind you at this juncture that internet fame or popularity doesn’t equate notability on Wikipedia.Celestina007 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

celestina007 What's even more interesting is that all the claims of her "instagram" fame aren't supported - the two sources that talk about it don't mention IG or don't even mention her account and when looking for her on ig, she is neither verified and the first account that comes up is a fan account, so...CUPIDICAE💕 18:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae, yup! & that too. Celestina007 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Prax's analysis of the sources; there is nothing which would meet the definition of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". I cannot find anything which would otherwise contribute toward the subject meeting GNG or the notability guidelines for entertainers. Wikipedia is not for promoting non-notable people. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:27, 14 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. There is enough of a consensus between those who believe that this as a distinct concept is a hoax and those who believe that the term might exist in some form but it is not notable in its own right to find a delete outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian school of fencing[edit]

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

This article is a complete hoax copied/translated from Russian Wikipedia where the original article was deleted already. A complete discussion with thorough fact check is available (in Russian).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the 1908 Pompeo Molmenti reference in the article checks out. [5]. Thus, not a hoax, pace thorough fact check in Russian. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a closer look at the contents you're referring to. Couple of mentions of "Venice" and "fencing" in one book isn't enough to add it to the references' list I believe. PeterLemenkov (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As requested, a closer look at pages 74-75 of the public domain (published 1908 in Chicago) text, cited in the article and to which I linked above: "Although the duel went gradually out of fashion [in Venice], the young patricians cultivated the art of fencing, which could boast renowned masters among the Venetians from the sixteenth century onward; for example, Salvatore Fabris, who lived in the court of Denmark. In the Seicento Bologna alone could challenge the supremacy of Venice in fencing, The Venetians were masters of the art, and shared with their colleagues of Bologna the sound principles of fencing known as Bolognese or Venetian. After Fabris, the Venetian School can boast a Nicoletto Giganti, a fruitful innovator in the art of arms, Francesco Alfieri, of the Delia Academy in Padua, and Bondi di Mazo, who published in 1694 a treatise which contains plates admirably representing the movement and the thrusts at that time in vogue in Venice. In the eighteenth century Giacomo Borgoloco enjoyed a high repute. His school in the Calle dei Botteri at San Cassianto was frequented by young men of the noblest families, and also sent out such distinguished masters as Angelo Secchietti, Lorenzo Mottali, Vettor Dolioni, Pietro Busida, Alberto Bruni, and Paolo de Grandis." [footnotes omitted] Enough to establish this article is not a hoax. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G3 as hoax. Am I doing this right? casualdejekyll (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a hoax. I emailed Matt Easton of Schola Gladiatoria. If you've seen any of his YouTube videos, you'll know that he's something of an expert on European swordsmanship. (I've never met him and have no involvement in HEMA; but I've written a couple of WP biographies of HEMA people, and had shown them to him for his interest.) He wrote : "I have just quickly scanned over this page, but I don't see specifically why someone would label it as a hoax. The sources are real and the citations are real (I even know some of the authors)." Narky Blert (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to invalidate your opinion, but I'd personally trust the source breakdown on ruwiki more then this, since they claim that none of the sources even mention the subject. casualdejekyll (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this mention on a blog is insufficient to establish notability by itself, it is sufficient to establish that it is not a hoax. When combined with the citation the IP provided, it is clear this is a real thing. When combined with all the other sources in the article itself, it is clear that it is notable. Smartyllama (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I get from the blog interview is that a specific "Venetian school" as the one described in the article does not exist (quote: "while Giganti describes himself as Venetian, his method is not wildly dissimilar to that of his contemporaries elsewhere in Italy"). --151.52.230.148 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs far more eyes on it given the proposed reason for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have no idea why people are using the logic of "it exists so it's notable". -Indy beetle (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Russian Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Venice clearly had fencing masters and schools. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment This is a case that relies on expert opinion that none of us are apparently competent to give. I cannot see blowing off the Russian WP decision without actually evaluating why they came to that conclusion, and I cannot see how the observation that people learned swordsmanship in Venice leads to the conclusion that what was taught there was a distinct style unlike that taught elsewhere. They teach fencing at Church Farm School too, and I have no doubt that they teach in a way consistent with all other American fencing. But frankly, my concern here is that if it were a recognized style, it would be a lot easier to document than this, and that the sources would be manuals on fencing rather than what comes across as a kind of athletic archaeology; if nothing else, it comes across, if not a hoax, as potentially an example of original research. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If is really is/was notable there would surely be a clearer case. Just because there was fencing in Venice doesn't mean that there was a notable Venetian school of fencing. Nigej (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G3, or otherwise for lack of notability. Keep votes confuse the potential existence of a legit (although very nichey) topic History of fencing in Venice with the object of the current article and its made-up stuff (the "center of percussion" stuff, a "Bolognese/Venetian" tradition etc.). As an Italian, I looked for a "scuola di scherma veneziana", "scuola veneziana di scherma" or "scuola di scherma di Venezia" and I have found nothing referring to the topic of the article. There is no specific "Venetian school" or Venetian style in fencing, which differentiates it from the Italian school of swordsmanship. The Russian page was edited by User:Saltan.andre, a well-known hoaxer also active in Italian wikipedia, in which he created similar fake pages like "Scherma genovese" ("Genoese fencing") using the same technique (random pages in random offline texts mentioning Genoa or fencing used as sources to support hoax text). The creator of the page Maks gerold was also blocked in ru.wikipedia as a mass creator of hoaxes. 151.52.230.148 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/delete Of course there was fencing in Venice (e.g. History of fencing in Venice as above), but it's not clear that there is or was a distinct method there as recognized as a separate school. The article highlights Nicoletto Giganti and Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l'Arme, si da offesa come da difesa but again neither of them establish this as a distinct style within or from eother the broader Italian school of swordsmanship or Bolognese Swordsmanship (which also fail to mention this). Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 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) 10:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNIVAC Tape to Card converter[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2005-10 ✗ deleted

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Type 62. Daniel (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harbin First Machinery Building Group Ltd[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Type 62 (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Harbin First Machinery Building Group Ltd (also known as 674 Factory) is the manufacturer of Type 62, a Chinese light tank.
According to this article in GlobalSecurity.org, "As a large state-owned enterprise, Harbin First Machinery Group Co., Ltd. of China North Equipment Co., Ltd. had the social responsibility to help the country provide relevant capabilities." It is possible that the company is notable given it is "a large state-owned enterprise", but I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about it to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The Wikipedia article does not include the company's Chinese name (and my searches using the English name did not reveal its Chinese name), which would be a better search term for Chinese sources for this Chinese company.
Cunard (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Cunard, the Chinese name according to the Chinese article for Type 62 is either "哈尔滨674厂" or "哈尔滨674厂装甲兵科学技术研究院" if those can help you find anything. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, Emir of Wikipedia. I did searches for "哈尔滨674厂" and "哈尔滨674厂装甲兵科学技术研究院" and could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the company. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Type 62, It's amazing how long this stub has lasted and I don't think I've seen an article that's been so rarely edited before. Besides the point, Redirects are cheap. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- JayJay, I found it on Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles if you are interested in articles that have not been edited in a long time, many of which have been rarely edited either. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep company also developed the Type 83 SPH see: [6] Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 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) 10:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cristi Boboc[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NRU as per ItsRugby and Super-Liga. There is a reality TV contestant of the same name who seems to get a lot of coverage but they are different people, see this source. That other Boboc is slightly older and looks different. I found one source covering Boboc that was more than a passing mention but he lacks the multiple sources required to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG. Was named in most recent international squad but their match was cancelled due to COVID. With no international matches in the near future that will allow him to pass WP:NRU it's a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Is a reasonably recent creation so could perhaps be draftifyed until notable. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of non-notable rugby players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G4. Kline | vroom vroom 22:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kawsar ahmed[edit]

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

I don't know what to do with this article. It's been tagged with several different speedy tags, so the best thing to do is discuss it. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam article; only covered in self-published sources or non-RS; does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG, the situation has not changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawsar Ahmed and I believe that this is similar enough to be speedy deleted Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VANISPAM for a non-notable musician who's a legend in his own mind. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessive use of citations for little effect. Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject fails both WP:GNG - no significant coverage and WP:MUSICBIO.Less Unless (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity spam. —Kbabej (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pure spam RationalPuff (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G4. We've been here before. Pahunkat (talk) 18:35, 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. Daniel (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Sigma Gamma[edit]

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

Searches turned up a dearth of in-depth coverage. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a quality article about a legitimate society with ~85 chapters. It had been languishing in draft space for several months after being started by a new editor. I cleaned it up for posting, with a To Do list showing new editors how to complete the chapter list. Within hours it gets hit with a AfD PROD... WP says to "assume good faith". OK, why else would Onel5969 choose to AfD PROD this article? He/she said they had done a search, which turned up a "dearth" of in-depth coverage. Really? Wow. Dearth means lack. But the strangest thing happened. Again, assuming good faith, I clicked the standard find sources template which Onel5969 helpfully inserted along with the AfD. The very first item, a Google search, turned up links for dozens of official university website pages, each dedicated to their local, active, and thriving chapters of the society on that campus. This was just on the first two pages of my Google search. I haven't gotten to JSTOR or other sources. University websites are independent, and because the topic of each page was that local chapter, the coverage may reasonably be described as "in-depth" versus "cursory." Maybe the nominator's internet connection was down when he/she attempted their own searches. They said they searched. Hmm.

So, using the first ten new links, I added those ten chapters to the growing chapter list for the society's article. I included references, and links for those who wish to check my work.

I looked again, and even in the cursory Google search, another scholarly article popped up, in a Health Sciences journal, which I added to the growing list of references.

I suppose it is possible that each of these universities has posted a fraudulent society chapter, with officers, membership applications and local advisors, but it is unlikely that ALL of them conspired to do so.

Therefore, it is clear, Eta Sigma Gamma is a Notable organization and should be retained on this basis: First, it certainly meets the standard used by the Fraternities and Sororities Project that requires at least three chapters to claim national status. (It has 85 chapters). It has existed for 53 years, showing permanence. Even if it was a local, single-chapter fraternity it would be required to have existed ten years for notability among other requirements; again, this organization is over 53 years old. Eta Sigma Gamma (and its local Ball State chapter) are registered corporations in Indiana, as cited among the references. It has a physical address and comprehensive website. It is noted in a scholarly journal, as cited in the references. Finally, Eta Sigma Gamma's Talk page "to do" list asks for additional citations and other cleanup, reasonably so, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. I prefer to improve articles on valid, non-controversial subjects, instead of salting good work with random and harmful AfD PRODs like this.

This rush to delete is arbitrary, without adherence to the consistent, methodical approach used by the active Fraternities and Sororities Project and an unnecessary example of "Deletionism" versus the more helpful and comprehensive approach of "Inclusionism". There are some 1,200 national and local groups we track that are Notable, while we ourselves deem some 6,000 (maybe as many as 50,000) past or present fraternal organizations as Non-Notable. To pick at one, and waste time in a capricious AfD debate is pointless and harmful. Deletionism simply pushes away helpful new editors and opens the door to a broader, more inclusive competitor to Wikipedia. Neither are good outcomes.

The rules regarding Deletion require competence, and elaborate on this, saying that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." --Thus I hope that the nominator isn't simply picking on fraternity articles to take cheap shots. Probably not. Jax MN (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NORG. There isn't a single reliable independent source that discusses the subject in detail on the entire article and BEFORE shows nothing better. And FYI, WikiPryjects do not own the articles they watch. 65.129.40.90 (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are AFDSOCKS allowed to vote? Your IP address shows a history of three deletion discussions and no further contributions. Contrary to your point, each and every one of the university references is independent, and reliable. Further, there are now two scholarly journals cited. No; WikiProjects do not own the articles they watch. But they provide tremendous consistency in making sense of the categories they support. I call shenanigans on this vote. Jax MN (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Covered in publications related to its field. Complete chapter list is available, but I'm going to hold off making the complete list until this AFD is complete.Naraht (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The organization in question maintains an active website (https://etasigmagamma.org/). It is not a social college fraternity dating to another century, but a modern professional society for physicians. It seems absurd to propose for deletion a society active at this very moment in recognizing medical professionals of merit by its terms, whose inductees clearly feel, and one may suppose, that its current and alumni members are part of a larger whole, or else it would not exist. Notability relies on the fact that some reliable sources (not instantiated by the subject itself) might be expected to have documentation and proof of the subject, and here it is undeniable that neutral sources via Google or Bing can show us the existence of ΗΣΓ (Eta Sigma Gamma). A brief review of the websites of the institutions which are purported to have such chapters reveals there are ample secondary and respectable sources (if we may assume universities to be so) for the society's existence and thus notability to those associated. For the record, I have no association, communications with, or contact with this group. This is only my own considered opinion. If any feel this article lacks basis, let us improve it rather than destroy it. I'll be the first one with a shovel in the ground. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Ridder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

PR-spam. The sources don't really cover him in depth enough to warrant an article, and laughably, the GQ source doesn't even spell his name right which makes me question their general reliability. CUPIDICAE💕 14:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mistake of incorrectly spelled name should not define its reliability. There are plenty of other sources that heavily discusses him and his work such as the one from Matichon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brslxyl (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks evidence of notability in credible sources. Creator of this page and a major contributor appear to be largely focused on creating content on this director and his films, suggesting a conflict of interest Dexxtrall (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little left after we remove the fluff. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I have found this fully dedicated to the subject and a review from the same source however this is not enough to satisfy the WP:SIGCOV. Less Unless (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Less Unless, Filmdaily is almost certainly an unreliable source. It looks like they accept "native advertising, guest posts, sponsored content and partnerships", and the site is also on Prax's SEO list. Perryprog (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this source https://www.matichon.co.th/prachachuen/news_2444802 isn't reliable enough, as it is dedicated to talk about one of his films and it goes on further talk about his other work and his background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brslxyl (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear from the cited sources on the page that this person has had significant roles in films as an actor as we as filmmaker, including his recent notable feature film Help (2021). Further research on social media shows that he "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, while I understand large followers on social accounts isn't reliable source, but you only have to quickly scroll his feed and see the interactions. As per entertainers notability, he is also "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Looking at his youtube channel with several videos in millions views and comments, several which have received awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:880F:B200:7DEF:ED85:CBD4:7B71 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, sources aren't really significant coverage, and even it was, WP:BLP1E would probably apply. The now-deleted references look like PR/SEO spam. Perryprog (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, How does WP:BLP1E apply? There's one source talks about his work on his feature film, and another source talk about his short film Coronavirus, then another talks about another of his short film The English Teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:880F:B200:F42C:99AE:7D01:2873 (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop attacking me and the way I edit, but instead defend if the subject is notable or not. There is no violation on Wikipedia by editing and creating articles for one person alone. It is also not a violation by asking about the page being patrolled, this is all speculative. Blake has many people that loves his work, you can see that from the comments on his social accounts, I am just one of them who came across that and putting it on Wikipedia. That's all, I avoided using biased words in the article. So I don't see what I am doing wrong here. As this is not paid editing or COI. Tomorrow I may decide to edit on another person that I like the work of, does that mean it is disruptive editing? To delete a page based on the behaviour of the person who created the page isn't the right, you should concentrate on looking at the sources, his work, and the awards he's won from his work, these are not seo spam and pr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brslxyl (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nowhere near enough evidence to pass WP:GNG. Maybe WP:TOOSOON but no reason to keep at present. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG so there is no criteria-based reason for keeping this Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the person who makes the final decision to keep or delete, please observe those that said Delete only mentioned not notable, and was not able to defend each source specifically, his notable film(s) specifically, or his prolific awards from his films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:880F:B200:6917:16F2:FA25:D1FB (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
this page was also edited by an administrator ReaderofthePack without any issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:880F:B200:F42C:99AE:7D01:2873 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did help clean it up, but that's not entirely a justification to keep or delete. I do think that there's more of an argument for notability now than there was when I nominated it for deletion back in 2016, however the main argument for notability is the 2021 film Help. It looks like the Spanish language sources for the COVID-19 film could help argue for a keep, but it's a weak one. If there were more coverage as a whole it would be a lot easier. My thought here is that if this closes as delete, which looks likely, this could redirect to the Help article until more sourcing becomes available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, with decidedly unreliable sourcing. Desperation to get this article indexed and kept makes me suspicious for covert conflicts of interest. Wikipedia is not for promotion of non-notable people. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
as per above - "Spanish language sources for the COVID-19 film could help argue for a keep", as well as his feature film Help (2021) which has now been decoded as a Keep. These are all reliable sources. You are attacking on the individual who contributing to the article more than its notability defence. Brslxyl (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down on Us[edit]

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

No assertion or evidence of notability for this obscure low-budget film. Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - From what I have gathered on my WP:BEFORE the movie has a cult-like following for being soooo bad. There are lot of sources: [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]]... and more. So, I want to see what other say, but leaning to keep it. Kolma8 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets film notability requirements. I'm finding reviews in newspaper archives. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I added 2 to the article. Someone could incorporate info from 1 and 2. There are likely others in archives. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion including two film reviews that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews are now present in the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:08, 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 and userfy per request. Daniel (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Butnariu[edit]

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

According to ItsRugby and Super-Liga, has not made any WP:NRU appearances. Coverage found is just routine squad listings. This was the best source, but it's short of the level of coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG. Was named in the most recent international squad but their match was cancelled due to COVID. With no international match anytime soon that would allow him to pass WP:NRU it's a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Could potentially be draftifyed but page has been in mainspace since early 2018. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I request userfication for this article. Can anyone help me do this? (Gabinho^>:) 07:15, 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 as a topic for an independent article about the cricket term. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous 4[edit]

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

New article, with a speedy note declined. I'm not convinced that this is notable, certainly not under its current title.

The "term" seems to stem from a single comment by Martin Crowe. Of the six articles cited by the article, neither Fab or Fabulous appears in three of them, and Fabulous is only used in one. Although the term is in some use, I'm not convinced that it is a "popular term", certainly not as "Fabulous Four".

An alternative would be to move the article to Fab Four (cricket). The title Fab Four is, as you might expect, a redirect to a popular 1960s Liverpudlian beat combo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the speedy because it doesn't match the criteria (asserting that it contains notable people and is believable is enough), plus a Google News search for "Fab 4 cricket" brings back mentions of the term in sources such as this. I don't know there's enough in-depth coverage of the term to be able to write an in-depth article. Nevertheless, if there is, I agree it should sit at Fab four (cricket). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have moved it to Fab Four (cricket) as I agree it is more suitable. As per the credibility of it, at least a billion people who actually watch cricket would confirm that there's such a term, and not even 1% would realise that it was conned by Martin Crowe (RIP). The term is just a pop culture thing in cricket just as Choke artist or Journeyman (football) and contains more than enough evidence to be approved. The only reason why you should delete this is that it hasn't been published by an editor you've heard of. Even previously, the article List of most-viewed Indian videos on YouTube which I created in 2019, was deleted and now someone else has remade it, taking the credit from me, destroying my hours of hardwork.

My article List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters was deleted after being there for three years with 25,000 views every month. For absolutely no reason!! So every one-time Star Wars character could have it's own separate article, but a tv show with hundreds of millions of daily active audience and over 3,000 episodes cannot have a list page???

I just have to say that this is a case of pure Discrimination. And this is the worst platform that even though runs solely from public led information, always INSULTS and DEMEANS its contributors because of some so-called administrators. So...

Off with you Wikipedia

To hell with your approval. Go on delete it!

I am aman goyal (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've reverted a premature move and removal of the afd template. Per Richie333, the title should be Fab four (cricket) ("four" not capitalized) if kept. Seems to be a little coverage of the concept, which predates Crowe's comments, but not enough to build a substantial article. Perhaps there is a suitable article to merge into, but I can't think of one. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be a passing neologism. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NEO, plenty of sources using the phrase, and it has been in use for at least ten years, but there don't seem to be any reliable sources describing it. Perhaps a mention in our glossary article, or Wiktionary, is the best place. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources, such as this one, describing this (at least the original cricketing "fab four"). I'm rather surprised to see anyone who follows cricket describing this as a neologism. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO, this is just a neologism that doesn't have a lasting impact to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Fabulous 4 to either Fabulous Four or Fab Four (disambiguation), which are a pair of disambiguation pages with some relevant results (I would be tempted to merge the two dab pages together, since there's some shared entries between them and both are rather short). I have no opinion on Fab four (cricket). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable application of a common phrase. I notice it is also used of the bowling attack of the West Indian cricket team in England in 2020. St Anselm (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note the page has been moved since the start of this discussion. My above !vote is for the current article Fab four (cricket). I think the term is notable (beyond its reference to the Beatles) and we could have an article on the general use of the term. It was also used for four Brisbane Lions Australian rulers football players 20 years ago. St Anselm (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepthi Vidhu Prathap[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNGACTOR. She does not have any significant roles in movies other than being a TV anchor. The subject has recieved coverage from multiple sources only because her husband Vidhu Prathap is a notable playback singer. Its better to merge this with Vidhu Prathap under the title Personal life.Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject is not notable on her own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help (2021 film)[edit]

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

fails WP:NFILM - the only coverage is in paid for spam sources and isn't otherwise notable CUPIDICAE💕 12:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now more sources being added to page, these are not paid for spam sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brslxyl (talk • contribs) 14:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what sources would those be that cover this film in depth? CUPIDICAE💕 14:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the page for the sources that's been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brslxyl (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several reviews cited in the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage in the article including reviews in Starburst and Film Threat which are reliable sources for films, passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. As a side note, this is not an endorsement to keep any of the actors or other persons involved in this film. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks BubblySnow 💬 17:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAVOTE. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Filmhounds, Film Threat and Starburt reviews appear to be decent enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa Nair[edit]

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

Fails WP:Basic and not enough coverage. The subject have not enough credited roles in movies to have its own independent article Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 12:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 12:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRICKETMANIAC303 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one film role is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One lead role is not enough by our standards. I believe more sources exist in Malayalam, but that won't help its cause. Jupitus Smart 02:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More notable sources are required here Jenyire2 05:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Alexe[edit]

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

No appearances that would qualify him for notability under WP:NRU according to this source and this one. A WP:BEFORE search only came up with the usual name checks in match reports and squad announcements so no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this was already draftified but the creator put it back into mainspace with a cut and paste move, hence why it's now at AfD instead of another draftify. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG. Was named in an international squad recently but the match was cancelled due to COVID. With no games in the near future that would allow him to pass WP:NRU its a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meets neither WP:NRU or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of non-notable rugby players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet to meet wiki notability standards in this area Jenyire2 05:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Babbu Rana[edit]

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

youtube links aren't enough to show notability Dtt1^Talk 12:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 12:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 12:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources fails in passing WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. Cites are to a PR-Wire and YouTube. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 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 no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion of this article. BD2412 T 06:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Max Jason Mai[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and simply participating in a show doesn't pass meet WP:MUSICBIO. The criteria is to "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." Coming in 15th in the semi-final doesn't quite hit that mark. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012. While he does have some other credits, they appear to be pretty minor. Happy to reconsider if he has more to his career that is simply missing from the article. As it stands, all of the notable details are already included in the Slovakia article, where they typically would be anyway. Grk1011 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable per point 10 and 12 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles within WP:NMUSIC. Per representing his country in the Eurovision Song Contest. Article certainly needs work but that in itself is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BabbaQ. Article needs a bit of a going-over but notability is demonstrated. ser! (let's discuss it). 17:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as per #10, if this is the only claim, and it is, the subject should be redirected to the main article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a claim, it is a reality. Point 10 is for an individuals notability, this individual is within point 10 and is notable. Both for point 10 and 12. Eurovision is within ITN/R so notable as one of the worlds most watched television events. BabbaQ (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, hi. I wasn't casting aspersions on your !vote, merely using the language of the SNG. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. He was not a "win, place, or show" in Eurovision. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. He performed in Eurovision and placed in the semifinal.BabbaQ (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Eurovision Song Contest 2012~~ Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Just passes #10 of WP:MUSICBIO, which may not necessarily indicate that the subject is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile: Would you support Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 as the target for the redirect? Grk1011 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grk1011: Yes, that would be more appropriate. Thanks for notifying! I've changed it above. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He passes #10 as you say and also in fact #12 of WP:MUSICBIO so is notable. We have guidelines for a reason. BabbaQ (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found some sources with significant coverage and appear credible; [[13]][[14]][[15]]and [[16]]. Luciapop (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of those sources are independent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per sources demonstrated by BabbaQ. Pilean (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you do realize that BabbaQ didn't provide any sources? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Pilean means guidelines I provided which shows notability. Or the good sources demonstrated by Luciapop.BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per BabbaQ. --Snowstormer ^{(T | C)} 14:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pat O'Toole (rugby union)[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted at PROD but re-published. Article fails WP:NRU having made no professional or international appearances in a notable league. A WP:BEFORE search only provides some transactional reports and not enough for significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NRU and it has been established for a while now that you need more than just routine announcements of "x signs for y" to establish notability under WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 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. There is a clear consensus that this article is meets criteria for deletion according to our policy. There is also consensus that this might be a useful redirect term for our users. However, there was no consensus here what the target for the redirect should be. If someone creates a redirect, further discussion on the talk page and, if that's unsuccessful, at WP:RFD could be appropriate to reach consensus on the target. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The All[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The article, calling itself a few times explicitly "a commentary", is a piece of original research that is almost entirely based on primary sources: it cites three times book 1 of the Corpus Hermeticum (in the translation by Salaman et al., called The Way of Hermes), one time book 2 of the Corpus Hermeticum, thirteen times the Kybalion (a Neo-Hermetic/occultist work published in 1908), three times Manly P. Hall's The Secret Teachings of All Ages (an occultist work published in 1928), three times The First Encounter (a pamphlet by Claude Nowell, leader of the new religious movement called Summum), one time SUMMUM: Sealed Except to the Open Mind (a book published by the same organization), one time an online Latin dictionary ('Mirza'), and two times Scott's introduction to vol. II of his translation of the Hermetica. Of these, only the references to Scott are appropriate.
(2) Although the concept of 'the All' does indeed occur in some ancient Hermetic tracts, this article is almost completely devoted to the interpretation of that concept by twentieth-century occultists, in casu the Kybalion and Summum, a new religious movement whose doctrines are closely based upon the Kybalion. Thus, in order to save the article, we would have to change the lead to reflect that the article is about a concept in twentieth-century occultism rather than in ancient Hermetism. But the problem then arises that it will be impossible to rewrite the article so as to be based on reliable secondary sources, because hardly any such sources exist even for Kybalion itself (I spent considerable effort looking for this when recently rewriting the article on the Kybalion, but found only a very few semi-decent sources).
(3) Given this lack of coverage, the subject does not at this time meet the requirements for notability. Moreover, as it stands now, it is largely a form of self-promotion (see also the comment, already from 2006, with regard to this on the article's talk page).
(4) While an article on the concept of 'the All', either in ancient philosophy, in modern occultism, or both, may one day be written, the article we have now really is a case of 'blow it up and start over'. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 12:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with nominator. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I have to agree that this is a case where we have to “blow it up, and start over”. There are definitely some noteworthy (and perhaps even WP:Notable) subjects being discussed in the article, but they have been joined together in a way that clearly constitutes synthetic original research. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This reminds me of Conceptions of God, where any important material could possibly be merged... —Paleo Neonate – 17:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would there be value in making it a redirect, maybe to Hermeticism where "The All" is mentioned in the Philosophy section? XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – The All is important in Hermeticism - The All is referred to 5 times in the Hermeticism article – it differs from pantheism, in which reality is identical with divinity, to include spiritual and other realms beyond the senses (not arguing whether or not other realms exist, just that they're part of the beliefs of Hermeticism) – the article needs revision and relies too heavily on the Kybaliom – drafitfying the article would provide an opportunity to improve the article – as an alternative, a section could be added to the Hermeticism article explaining the concept of The All (it is mentioned in the Philosophy section of the article, but not fully developed) - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC) – comment redacted due to new comment – see below, Epinoia (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Redirecting might be a good idea. I just rewrote the section in Hermeticism#God as 'the All' so as to be based on scholarly views (it previously only referred to book 10 of the Corpus Hermeticum), so we may for the time being redirect there. Rather than draftifying the current article on The All, I propose that interested editors work directly on the Hermeticism article, which is in need of a lot of attention. As for the section in Conceptions of God#Hermeticism, it seems to be written by the same author, or at least from the same perspective (OR and misleadingly based on modern occultist/new age works like the Kybalion) as the article currently under discussion. It (the section on Hermeticism in Conceptions of God) suffers from the same problems, and I propose to also delete it. Some further clean-up in other related articles will probably be needed as well. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The concept of The ALL does not exclusively belong to Hermeticism; for example, it is used in the New Age movement. Redirecting to Conceptions of God] won't help as that article is focussed on specific religions and their teachings - in the main. My sense is the the focus on Hermeticism is misleading in the light of modern usage. WP:TNT applies here. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect I would suggest deleting the article but redirecting it to Absolute (philosophy). The All and the Absolute refer to the same thing in philosophy and certain esoteric religions i.e. an unconditional reality. The All article even lists the Absolute directly in the lead as a synonymous term. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolute (philosophy) describes itself as "about the concept in Hegelian philosophy", but then goes on to also discuss a number of (presumably completely different) concepts in "Indian religions", and ends up pointing to Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy. That is quite disastrous. Moreover, it does not seem to be the case that any of these philosophical systems actually used the term 'the All'? As both Epinoia and I have pointed out, "the All" (Greek: to pan) is a known concept in ancient Hermetic texts, which has been noted and discussed by modern scholars (see the references in Hermeticism#God as 'the All'). As Whiteguru says, the term as such is also used in the New Age movement (though there are very good reasons to suspect that the modern New Age conceptions of 'the All' are ultimately rooted in the ancient Hermetic concept). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 15:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to wherever is appropriate, probably the relevant section of Hermeticism. GPinkerton (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and redirect. Worthy of coverage, can be done better than this in time. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To confirm redirect target and confirm deletion is the best option
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was already thinking this may be really hard to close. Let's make it a bit easier for the closing admin by coming to some definite decision ourselves. I propose to delete and redirect to Hermeticism#God as 'the All': delete rather than draftify because the entire article is OR and there is not one decently sourced paragraph in it that can be salvaged (thus qualifying for WP:TNT), and redirect to Hermeticism#God as 'the All' because that section actually contains a rudimentary discussion of a concept by that name in ancient Hermeticism. Everyone agrees that the concept as it exists in Neo-Hermeticism (the Kybalion) or in the New Age movement is also worthy of coverage, but since it appears that scholars have not actually covered it yet, please do not use this as an argument without actually providing sources we can work with. If you believe that the article should be draftified, please clarify which sections of the article are worthy of keeping and why. If you believe we should redirect to some other page, please argue why it would be a better option than Hermeticism#God as 'the All'. Generally, please present arguments that go beyond it's interesting (I agree that it is, but we can't work with that). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 12:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear PaleoNeonate, XOR'easter, Epinoia, Whiteguru, Psychologist Guy, and Hyperbolick, would you care to discuss a bit? Thanks! Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 00:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as suggested in the proposal just above. XOR'easter (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect – I redacted my earlier comment – I think Hermeticism#God as 'the All' provides enough coverage of this topic – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would become of that "one decent paragraph"? Hyperbolick (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as suggested in the proposal just above. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - I revisited the article, checked more closely if the material matched the sources. Much of the article corresponds to its citations, most reflecting parts of The Kybalion. Some of the text apparently altered later (notably the lead) doesn't fit the citations. The Kybalion is a primary source and the article fails to properly present it as what it is, a modern new-age spiritualist synthesis somewhat inspired from Hermetism. Some parts may belong in The Kybalion article (but should still ideally be supported by a secondary source about the Kybalion). As for "The All" itself, it's indeed already covered in Hermetism as others have pointed out. —PaleoNeonate – 11:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear PaleoNeonate, could you be a bit more specific about which sections of the article would be a candidate for merging? Also, since this will be far from trivial, would you take it upon you to actually perform the merge? As I see it, the fact that individual claims in the article match their source (i.e., the Kybalion) is not very helpful, since these claims are firmly embedded in a synthetic interpretative reasoning that we could not possible keep per WP:PRIMARY. Moreover, we would indeed need to support this by secondary sources on the Kybalion, but the crux of the problem is of course that such sources do not seem to exist (yet). I believe that if the Kybalion article is going to have a section on 'the All', it would be best to directly quote the Kybalion itself (like I've done for the seven principles) rather than paraphrase it (always an interpretation) without secondary sources supporting that paraphrase. Would you be willing to work on this? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't put work into this at current time, sorry. As for quoting the primary text itself, it may be acceptable when uncontroversial (especially for quotes), although it's generally best to use secondary scholarly sources when possible. If no secondary sources cover the Kybalion, its notability may be at stake... —Paleo Neonate – 04:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've got the six pages in Horowitz 2019 and the short reference to the seven principles in Brînzeu 2011. It's enough to base the notability of the seven principles on, and generally to cover the little that is currently present in the Kybalion article, but not any more than that. This is precisely why I argue that the article currently under discussion should be entirely deleted: no secondary sources exist for any of it. Can you agree on deletion then? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 09:49, 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 keep. There have been insufficient objections to the article as it was improved towards the end of the discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Boomhouwer[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. There is a press mention here, but it is not enough to establish notability. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? She has been the singer on a number of Trance music's big hits over the last decade including one, "Shivers" that was selected this January as the most popular song over the 20-year run of Armin Van Buuren's "A State of Trance" (ASOT) radio show in the show's 1000th episode. ASOT is the central show of an entire music genre. She has toured with Armin van Buuren and is signed with Armada Records, both the central forces in a music genre. What more do you have to do to be notable? In addition, her collaborations with Aly & Film and RAM also produced popular songs. She is definitely notable and deserves a Wikipedia page. It was a major omission that she did not have a page. User:brholden (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your point of view is appreciated. Please provide links to independent reliable sources that establish her notability. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the article considerably, adding categories, four references including three from the existing German wikipedia page and three more external links. If you do a Google search for "Armin Van Buuren Susana", you get 199,000 hits. A search for "Ramelia Susana" gets 24,900 hits. A A search for "Unbreakable Susana" gets 272,000 hits. User:brholden (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC) We're up to 8 references now, surely that should be enough.User:brholden (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is definitely notable and the article has been greatly improved now User:brholden (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After my research, I reached the same conclusions as the nominator. There is basically one in-depth article in a local newspaper of Susana's hometown. The paper is good enough but the article does not come across as independent. It reads like puff, as does our entry, Susana's website, and the entry on PartyFlock. The difficulty was that the singer mostly goes by her (common) first name. So willing to change my opinion if anyone comes up with sources that do establish notability. So far we have zero valid sources for notability and that includes the references that the creator just added. gidonb (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile the article has been expanded with more sources on data in Susana's career. We are missing sources that establish the notability of Susana Boomhouwer. gidonb (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added a bunch of good references. Take a look at at the two interviews I found in DMC World Magazine and in Fresh Music Freaks. I also found a Getty Image with her in it. I added two other references from EDM Update. I also added reference links all through the article to the various interviews. Surely with 14 references and eight external links she is notable.User:brholden (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You can't vote twice in an AfD. It's against Wiki policy. ExRat (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry - I had just made many improvements to the article, so I wanted people to re-examine their opposition. I've deleted the first "Keep". User:brholden (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One aspect that is unique to the Trance music genre is that the "A State of Trance" (ASOT) radio show serves in a role comparable to something like Rolling Stone Magazine. The central figure in the genre is Armin van Buuren, who has produced ASOT for 20 years. This show plays a curation and taste-making role for the genre as a whole. This is why I've included five separate references to various aspects of ASOT in this article including two that talk about how the ASOT1000 episode reached 50 million listeners. The fact that a song that she was the vocalist for was voted the song of the year in 2016 is comparable to if the readers of the Rolling Stone had voted her song as a best rock song of 2016. Even more notable is the fact that the listeners in 2021 voted the song that she was the vocalist for as the #1 trance song of the past 20 years, nearly the full duration of the genre. There is a Wikipedia page for one issue of Rolling Stone magazine that has such a list, Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. For the Trance genre, Susana's song "Shivers" is in the same position that Bob Dylan's song "Like a Rolling Stone" is, #1. This one event gives her instant notability. When combined with the other articles, the case is open and shut.
Delete because she is not well known.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems to be a prominent artist within her genre and also passes criteria 12 of WP:NMUSIC " Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network." in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Excellent point. She also meets some of the other notability criterion of WP:NMUSIC.
  - Criteria 5 - has released 2 or more albums on a major record label - she released the full albums "Closer" and "Brave", two remix albums, 7 EP's and many singles on Armada Music, which is the leading record label of the trance genre.
  - Criteria 6 - Is in an ensemble that contains two or more Independently notable musicians - she has recorded songs with many of the leading musicians in the trance genre including Armin Van Buuren (who was appointed an Officer of the Order of Orange-Nassau), Markus Schulz, Dash Berlin, Max Graham and Aly & Fila.
  - Criteria 9 - has won first, second or third in a major music competition - her song with Armin van Buuren was voted #1 in the 20-year history of A State of Trance by its listeners. Also, a different song of hers was voted #1 song of 2016 on ASOT.
  - Criteria 11 - Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. - Her songs are played over and over again on Above & Beyond Group Therapy Radio, A State of Trance and Ferry Corsten's Corsten's Countdown and Resonation Radio shows. Her songs are likely to play regularly on the new SiriusXM channel "A State of Armin", given her long association with Armin van Buuren and his major record label.
  - Criteria 12 - as noted above. Also, she was in-studio and was featured on Armin van Buuren's ASOT1000 broadcast that 50 million people were noted in the press as having listening to. User:brholden (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the page some more, adding her album cover art and an infobox. It is looking pretty good and is dramatically improved since the start. User:brholden (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment brholden Please stop improving the article and commenting here. The article was nominated for the deletion for not having references to independent reliable sources (it still doesn't, please check WP:RSP for the details). Now it is also extremely promotional (which is a separate reason to delete the article, please check WP:PROMO) and full of insignificant trivia. In case it survives this deletion discussion (strange things happen on Wikipedia all the time), it will need a massive WP:Cleanup with 30-40% content reduction. I am asking you to stop commenting here as 90% of this discussion consists of your writing, and your point of view has been already explained very clearly. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Just trying to make it better. I did one final addition of six pretty good new references for total of 20.User:brholden (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbarmadillo, please also note the bright side in User:brholden's behavior. He's passionate about topics. We totally need more of that at WP. Unlike most people who are passionate in discussions, he embraces the positive, is exciting with the nay-sayers at this AfD and does not argue with the yay-sayers. That's refreshing in a very positive way among those who write a lot on AfD pages! Just saying, there's a mixed bag here where the positive is dominant. Let's give User:brholden some space for his personal and Wikipedian expression! gidonb (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He owns 90% of this discussion. Looks like he has lots of space here to express his views and passions :) --Bbarmadillo (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbarmadillo, let it be! Always look on the bright side! gidonb (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaning toward delete, most of the references seem to be about songs or acts she's associated with, rather than directly about her. I don't see that she's won any major musical awards. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm going to refrain from expressing my opinion on the circumstances under which one should ever write the words "please stop improving the article", except to note that I have one, as does WP:PRESERVE. WP:PROMO is not a reason to delete an article but a reason to remove promotional material; again, see WP:PRESERVE. I'm not sure what citing WP:RSP has to do with anything, as by its own admission it is non-exhaustive: "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present."

As for the subject of the article, per above, she passes WP:MUSIC criteria 5, 11, and 12. This is a niche-ish genre in music so the notability of websites/media covering it is harder to determine, but the substance is somewhat easier: DMC World article is substantial and directly about her. I also found additional sources about her specifically, including this profile (https://www.gulf-times.com/story/407656/It-was-trance-music-that-found-me-not-other-way-ar) in the Gulf Times, of all places, and a further clip from A State of Trance (https://open.spotify.com/album/4fOnrjQFQ2asr2asX2940u?highlight=spotify:track:1As67ZWhdyTYW4v1Z85tW5). There is also a 15-year anniversary interview on Trance Podium, but that site is on the spam blacklist for non-clear-cut reasons ("It appears that it was a forum site that was xwiki abused in 2010. If you are looking to use it at ruWP, then I suggest that request to whitelist it at ruWP" per mediawiki discussion) which makes it awkward to cite.

I will go add these, because I assume I am not forbidden from improving the article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the record, I strongly support improving Wikipedia articles. At the same time, I do oppose WP:DIS, which sometimes happen in good faith (Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia). --Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:36, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Dolan[edit]

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

University fellow (not a prof), PhD completed in 2014, h-index of 11 on Google Scholar, doesn't seem to pass WP:NPROF. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, early-career scientist, not notable enough (yet, at least). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources doesn't indicate that he passes WP:NPROF. Pilean (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure why the "needs additional citations for verification" tag is dated October 2019, since the article was created yesterday [17]. Anyway, I'm not seeing evidence for passing WP:PROF (which would be very difficult for a postdoc). In addition, there may be WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO concerns, as the IP that created this article by overwriting a redirect geolocates to Redwood City, California and the subject works at UC San Francisco. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can only assume that tag was copy and pasted from another article! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems a likely possibility. My guess is that the article on Raul Andino, listed as an advisor, was the source. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations [18] too low to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, no other claim to notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regarding NPROF C1, here are Dr. Dolan's credentials in relation to those of his coauthors (with more than 5 papers) on his most recent 4 and most cited 4 works: total cites: Dolan: 318, median: 1688, avg: 5421; total papers: D: 12, med: 35, avg: 79; h-index: D: 11, med: 16, avg: 25. No other criteria for NPROF (or GNG) are even close. JoelleJay (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator and editors above (early snow close anyone?), article appears to have been created early in a possibly promising career, a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 19:00, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antidote (software)[edit]

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

Promotional article, does not pass WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:26, 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. Tone 10:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Baggott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotionally-toned article, has always been like this. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE or any other notability guideline. Mostly primary-sourced to material by the subject; the sole third-party source is a passing mention in the Guardian. Tagged for inadequate sourcing for five years without action; sourcing was not up to standard at any time before this. WP:BEFORE shows material by the subject, but nothing in RSes about the subject up to the standards of WP:BLP. David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Difficult one. Existing article is backed by promo refs and listings. She is often quoted by publications^[1]^[2]^[3] and Superdrug have signed her up for a range of products.^[4] Could argue WP:ENT point 2, or WP:Basic if rewritten and referenced better. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Given her work at being a pundit, I was surprised at the lack of actual coverage about her. This suggests it's promotion on her part more than more organic noteworthiness. In any case, if the present article was cut to RSes it'd be one line citing the Guardian passing mention. Basically - is there even source material for an article? - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Depending how widely-seen that Olay commercial was, she might be notable. Writing for magazines doesn't make you notable. I'm leaning towards delete at this point...Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pretty widely seen! She was the face for nearly a year on TV and Web.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- so did this generate RS coverage of Nadine Baggott herself? - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here is ever close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources doesn't meet WP:BASIC. Pilean (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree the sources aren't up to standard. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RS/others above, and WP:GNG. We cant find good sources because she hasn't done anything notable. Very rarely do advertising actors gain notability from doing TV commercials. I can think of the Rollover Mom and the Maytag Repair Guy, but it is a very short list. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Number 5 7 19:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WCC-FM[edit]

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

I can find no evidence of WP:SIGCOV about this radio station. It was moved over from draft space without following WP:AfC. Apart from its own website, I can't find any in-depth coverage and the article creator has a clear WP:COI. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Article is a hoax. There is no such station. Creator is an LTA vandal of radio station articles, using multiple accounts and IP addresses to add content about fictional radio stations.--Tdl1060 (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

but can we talk about it DJ JAYLON (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, please can you start by posting some sources to prove that this radio station exists? After that, we can have a look at its notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Agree with Tdl1060. I have taken the extra step of requesting the article be deleted per CSD G3 and I have started an ANI thread regarding the editor here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:21 on February 6, 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete As per nom, there are no sources to pass WP:SIGCOV. Pilean (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as untrue self-promotional nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 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. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 00:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamur Islamia Senior Alim Madrasah[edit]

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

A very similar case to this AfD. I am concerned that this does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NORG or WP:NBUILD. References are just passing mentions, database listings and a Facebook page. Searching the Bengali name reveals nothing better either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, ORGCRIT, does not make any claim towards NBUILD. Sources do not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS (see below) and BEFORE showed nothing. There does not appear to be any formal connection to IAU, so I don't believe it is an appropriate redirect target and I didn't find any other target that makes sense. If someone finds an alternative name for search, please ping me.

Sources in article:

Source	Evaluation
"info Jamur Islamia Senior Alim Madras…	Link to school's LMS No SIGCOV, not IS RS.
DEO Bogra". deobogra.gov.…	Database record with contact information. Not SIGCOV
"Jamur Islamia Senior Alim Madrasa -…	Link to school's LMS No SIGCOV, not IS RS.
"JAMUR ISLAMIA SENIOR ALIM MADRASA de…	Database record with contact information. Not SIGCOV
"List of Madrasah" (PDF).…	PDF of Database record with contact information. Not SIGCOV
"All Alim Madrasahs In Bangladesh – S…	Subject is mentioned in a list of schools
"Nominmadrasah".…	Faculty web page, no SIGCOV, not IS RS
"Sherpur Upazila", Wikipedia, 2021-01…	Link to wikipedia article

// Timothy :: talk 23:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per source analysis above and my inability to find anything better. Article fails both WP:NORG and WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:09, 14 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. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 23:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Towey[edit]

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

The subject has been able to get himself quoted on a few random topics in reliable sources (passing quote in Reuters [19] ("I made 890% during GameStop"), passing quote in Washington Post [20] ("Vaccination shouldn't be mandatory"), the Independent [21] ("Trump is known for his abrasive personality")) but there is nothing indicating the subject himself is notable. There's no coverage that's directly about him, and there's nothing to indicate that his company is notable, I can't even verify that it exists. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider moving this article to Draftspace in order for it to be improved and more sources to be added where the subject is the full feature of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmar34 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable 20 year old who gets a few totally random quotes and allegedly made a nice some of money in stock manipulation, but in the grand scheme of things that was not really much money and nothing else rises to the level of notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, nothing wikisignificant here. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has been featured in major reliable sources, such as The Washington Post, Forbes, Reuters, and The New York Times. --Sophiawr5 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC) — Sophiawr5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Fails notability guidelines for biographies and does not otherwise pass the GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same reasons as Jack Frost. — Mainly 15:51, 14 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 10:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Triarchy (DJ)[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Claimed charting is just a sub chart, not the main chart. Sourced to primary, PR, routine announcements and listings. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only slightly decent source is this Q&A on an EDM fan site; I can't see that there is enough here to pass WP:GNG and nothing found in a search Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gavi Begtrup[edit]

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

Candidate for mayoral primary, does not met WP:NPOL. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but he is also an inventor and published scientist, as well as an author for Inc. is that enough to keep this page up? What can I do to make this not considered for deletion? User:Berkeleyjess (author)

I added more information about Gavi Begtrup as an author and inventor to address the comments by User:Eostrix in mark for deletion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkeleyjess (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With an h-index of 10, he is not notable as an academic either.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eostrix , I'm not as experienced at Wikipedia as you are, so I'd love some suggestions of how I can improve this page to address your concerns. My perspective was that between his scientific contributions, writings, companies that he started, inventions, and political contributions he merits a page as a public figure. User:Berkeleyjess

As per the general notability criterion "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" -- I did find at least four articles that meet this criterion, pointing towards notability. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/01/27/gavi-begtrup-scientist-and-start-up-founder-running-mayor/4258583001/, https://www.fox19.com/2021/01/29/scientist-entrepreneur-launches-campaign-cincinnati-mayor/, https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/01/27/gavi-begtrup-running-for-mayor.html, https://www.uptowninnovationcorridor.com/newsletters/2019/3/22/the-corridor-conversation-gavi-begtrup-1 Chymicus (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not automatically passed just because you show that some sources exist. We don't just evaluate the footnotes for their number, but also test them for depth, their geographic and temporal ranges, and whether the context of what the person is getting covered for passes our notability criteria or not. The thing is, every mayoral candidate in every city always gets a cluster of campaign coverage in their local media, because covering local politics is local media's job — but what every mayoral candidate in every city doesn't always have is a reason why the world will still need an encyclopedia article about them to exist ten years from now. So no, the existence of a handful of campaign coverage in the local media is not enough to hand a person a free pass over WP:GNG that would exempt them from actually having to pass WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People, regardless of their field, are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs: simply being an inventor is not an automatic exemption from having to establish the notability of his work as an inventor, being a "published scientist" is not an automatic exemption from having to establish the notability of his work as a published scientist, and on and so forth. No matter what field a person is involved in, the notability test is not automatically passed just because it's possible to verify that he exists — it requires independent reliable sources to establish the enduring significance of his work by analyzing it. But his scientific and entrepreneurial work is referenced entirely to primary sources (staff profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, etc.) that are not support for notability, with no indication whatsoever of any external analysis of his importance — and while there's clearly a small smattering of campaign coverage in the context of his campaign for mayor, the existence of a bit of local campaign coverage is not an exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL for the reasons I explained above: if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to hand an unelected candidate for office a WP:GNG pass that exempted them from NPOL, then every candidate for office would always be exempted from NPOL, and NPOL itself would be meaningless since nobody would ever actually have to be measured against it at all anymore. So no, nothing here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for public office are almost never notable. I would say they are never notable if only in the primary except if they are a candidate in the US presidential primaries. There may be equivalent possible notability squeek by in other countries, but in the US the only people who are even notable just as primary candidates are US presidential primary candidates who get lots of attention. Even then, they almost always would already be notable for some other reason. I think even the fake Mexican had served in a public office earlier that made him notable, and Trump although never in public office was notable 15 or more years before Wikipedia came into existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person is not notable. --CanadianToast (talk) 20:15, 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 merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio. Daniel (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Ohio's 13th congressional district election[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. Anything notable about the race can be put into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 06:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes the GNG.[22][23][24][25] Merging everything into Ohio election page makes that article unwieldy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Morbidthoughts: Actually, merging it into the general Ohio article would be pretty easy. A paragraph is just enough, not an entire separate article. So again, it fails WP:SPLIT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're making a WP:ITSCRUFT argument after the GNG being met was pointed out. SPLIT, which is neither guideline nor policy, does not apply when this election itself meets the GNG and has that much content. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just because it passes GNG does not mandate a separate article. Expanded prose is more than welcome in the main state article. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. Also, WP:ROUTINE. These elections are held every two years, as required by law. And as ROUTINE says, "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence. It's why we automatically have articles on special elections, because they do NOT fall into a ROUTINE sort of standard when it comes to the regular election cycle. Love of Corey (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elections are not listed under ROUTINE nor Run-of-the-mill and are not analogous to the examples given in those articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, "Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence." Love of Corey (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote, Nsk92 then: "It is completely obvious that the provision refers to routine everyday types of events, not elections to U.S. Congress" Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll have to point out for transparency's sake that this article had been bundled into an earlier AfD, which was closed as keep. Love of Corey (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't believe single seat races held as part of a general election are article-worthy. Number 5 7 17:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question What article is it being proposed that this one be merged to? I probably support that proposal, but I want to figure out where we are trying to merge it. I can see three possible candidates, a general article on the 2006 election in Ohio, an article on the person who won the election, or an article on the Ohio's 13th congressional district. I would support any of the three outcomes. Also, unless we have 1882 Ohio's 13th congressional district election or even 1992 Ohio's 13th congressional district election, this reeks of presentatism and suggests we only have it because people really do create news type articles in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohio's 13th congressional district was formed in 1823. So if this is a legitimate part of a grander scheme we should have 1824 Ohio's 13th congressional district election, 1826 Ohio's 13th congressional district election and so on through 2020 Ohio's 13th congressional district election. The fact that the actual text of this article only covers the boundaries of the district back to 2003 shows a true lack of vision. The Almanac of American Politics was published biannually at least starting in the early 1970s, and may still be published. I have spent huge amounts of time perusing it, but before I became a regularl Wikipedia editor. An editor using it to develop better articles would need to avoid violating copyright laws, and may have to seek out additional sources, but that would be a way to finally get these articles to break free of presentism with more than just charts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell this is the only non-special election article related to a specific election in Ohio's 13th congressional district. It appears that for Ohio we only have the special election articles for 2013.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we should keep it seeing as it was bundled into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Arizona's 1st congressional district election and all those articles were kept. --CanadianToast (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were nominated again, individually this time, and two (2006 Colorado's 5th congressional district election and 2006 West Virginia's 2nd congressional district election) were closed as merge (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Colorado's 5th congressional district election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 West Virginia's 2nd congressional district election). So I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatch just yet. Love of Corey (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This also ignores that if we keep this article, 2006 will be the only year in which we have election articles for the district, for no explained reason at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that too. Love of Corey (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Concern about failing WP:GEOLAND not rebutted. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Enclave Islamabad[edit]

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

Appears to be a WP:GEOLAND fail - as far as I can tell this is just a neighborhood/residential development (rather than a legally recognized area like a town). Article's sources + a BEFORE give me a press release from a consumer advocacy group about investments in the neighborhood's construction, proof that it exists according to the local development authority, and WP:ROUTINE sorts of local coverage (plus plenty of real estate ads) but nothing that would pass WP:GNG. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:V. I would suggest editors add more sources to strengthen the validity of the article as it is borderline. Article is also in need of a cleanup, so after the consensus I would recommend it be passed on to WP:CLEANUP so it can be formatted correctly. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm _Talk 15:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated by the nom this fails WP:GEOLAND which is the hurdle. It is closed private development lacking sufficient secondary sources to make it notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted above, article fails WP:GEOLAND as well as lacking any kind of significant coverage. Yes, it's verifiable (i.e. the sources show that this suburb exists), but it is certainly not notable... --Jack Frost (talk) 02:59, 14 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 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado. Daniel (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Colorado's 7th congressional district election[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. Anything notable about the race can be put into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 06:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It passes the GNG.[26][27][28][29][30][31] I do not object to a merge in the current state, but there's plenty of content about the race for article expansion that would make merging into the state article unwieldy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Morbidthoughts: Actually, merging it into the general Colorado article would be pretty easy. A paragraph is just enough, not an entire separate article. So again, it fails WP:SPLIT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, what exactly are you responding to or are you just cutting and pasting from other AfDs without reading my rationale? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am responding to your argument with MY rationale. I just disagree with your argument which you repeat again and again. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which part of "I do not object to a merge in the current state" did you not understand before you copy and pasted starting with, "Actually"? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just because it passes GNG does not mandate a separate article. Expanded rose is more than welcome in the main state article. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. Also, WP:ROUTINE. These elections are held every two years, as required by law. And as ROUTINE says, "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence. It's why we automatically have articles on special elections, because they do NOT fall into a ROUTINE sort of standard when it comes to the regular election cycle. Love of Corey (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll have to point out for transparency's sake that this article had been bundled into an earlier AfD, which was closed as keep. Love of Corey (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't believe single seat races held as part of a general election are article-worthy. Number 5 7 17:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has sat as a very poorly written one source article since about the time of the election. If we cannot create something more substantive in over 14 years, we should not really try. Our whole set of articles on both members of congress and elections are riddled with POV-pushing, undue focus on very small issues and really need major rewrites. This creating of seperate articles on every single election every other year just leads to too narrow focus and opens us up to be infiltrated by POV-pushing. We should stop having articles on specific elections, and instead strive for brief summaries that avoid POV-pushing on the articles on the winning candidates and on the articles on the congressional districts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 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 merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado. Daniel (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Colorado's 4th congressional district election[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. Anything notable about the race can be put into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 06:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely passes the GNG,[32][33][34][35][36] and there's enough content out there to justify a standalone article although I do not object to a merge in the current state. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Morbidthoughts: Actually, merging it into the general Arizona article would be pretty easy. A paragraph is just enough, not an entire separate article. So again, it fails WP:SPLIT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you actually read my sentence before copying and pasting that response from other AfDs? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arizona????? I'm thinking WP:SK3 may apply if nom thinks that's a good idea. Smartyllama (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Also, WP:ROUTINE. These elections are held every two years, as required by law. And as ROUTINE says, "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence. It's why we automatically have articles on special elections, because they do NOT fall into a ROUTINE sort of standard when it comes to the regular election cycle. Love of Corey (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't believe single seat races held as part of a general election are article-worthy. Number 5 7 17:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per what I said on two prior requests: Every single election has a page here, it would be weird to just be missing two or three. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article itself reeks of POV pushing, considering that it tries to act as if this was a single-issue election, and is written with clear bias to try to make it somehow seem that the winner of the election lost. It is clearly not a comprehensive article, and it ignores 2 facts, that people vote for a candidate that for or against an incumbent, so even if some voters are motivated by dislike, others are by like, so to treat the incumbent as the only candidate of substance is not giving a good view. Also, when the two top candidates garner only 89% of the vote, maybe we need to look at who 3rd party candidates are and why. As written this is a POV-pushing hatchet job. As wrtitten it should just be a section of the article on the winner, with a bit better analysis and less single-issue falacies and POV-pushing motivated by clear animus on the part of many editors against anyone who believes in man/woman marriage, a clear animus that in not much time after this motivated Colorado to try to force an artist to create works that he did not agree to create. If the choice is between such a POV-pushing hatchet job and no article at all, we should clearly choose no article and not engage in such creation of super biased articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado, where prose is more than welcome. The above statement "Every single election has a page here" is false and not grounded in reality: we do not and should not have individual articles on every individual seat. Reywas92^Talk 18:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:43, 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. There's consensus that the coverage in the sources meets the threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Lung (band)[edit]

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

Unnotable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore punk ("powerviolence") duo. (God, I hate the word "powerviolence" so much, it's such a stupid word to describe an awesome genre, but that's just my opinion.) Anyways, their bland name makes it a bit difficult to search, Google has returned quite a few results however. The only problem is that they are interviews on unreliable looking sites, streaming links, databases, concert sites and a few retail sites. No evidence of notable members or record labels. Haven't released any full-length albums, just demos, EPs and the like, typical for underground bands. Tagged for notability since 2009 and sources since 2021. I don't see their notability. But prove me wrong! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some decent coverage found. I suspect more exists: [37], [38], [39], [40]. They have released a few studio albums and several live albums - if they're not 'full-length' that's probably because most of their songs are very short. --Michig (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above which shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view. The AV Club piece is particularly convincing imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above; Noisey/Vice and AV Club are both relatively large national music publications and generally reliable for news (i.e. not blog/opinion) coverage, The Stranger is a well-known and reliable Seattle publication, and Pittsburgh City Paper is a less well-known but reliable alt weekly. Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:09, 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 keep. Tone 10:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ihwan Datu Adam[edit]

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

Non notable politicians. Lacks WP:SIGCOV Jenyire2 05:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 05:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will be Bold to repair this article soon. --Tensa Februari (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPOL, as this person has been a member of a national legislature. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is very poorly written in its current form, and definitely needs some copyediting and some additional sourcing, but the CNN source present in the article ([41]) does confirm ("Member of the East Kalimantan Provincial DPRD for the 2009-2014 period") that he's held an WP:NPOL-passing role. Definitely flag for cleanup if it isn't immediately forthcoming. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article's a mess, but it does pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a mess. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Tristan Surtel, Bearcat and Onel5969. Held positions in both sub-national (East Kalimantan) and national (People's Representative) legislatures. Bkissin (talk) 18:30, 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. Tone 10:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Emmanuel[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No WP:RS sources cited Jenyire2 05:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 05:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rwanda-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry about deletion

Hello fellow Wikipedians ,am just wondering ,what could be the main reason for the nomination of this article's deletion,I believe that in order to avoid discouraging new editors we cn focus more on mentoring ,correcting and guiding them rather than just deleting article without providing a justification ... Let's say that editor has created an article for the first time ,apart from deleting the article what else did you help him???? I was of a view that the deletion tag can come with reasons for deletion so that the editor can invest much time in learning and correcting mistakes ....... stay blessed Ndahiro derrick (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ndahiro derrick: The article has not been nominated for deletion because you are a new editor. It is because Bob Emmanuel is not believed to qualify for a Wikipedia article under the notability rules for musicians. See WP:NMUSICIAN. In other words, it's because of him, not you. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mr. Emmanuel does not satisfy the notability requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN. He has not been covered by reliable sources in any significant fashion, and is only visible in his own social media promotions and unreliable press releases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources provided in the article that demonstrate the subject's notability. My WP:BEFORE has also turned up nothing. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the above; also, we very rarely keep DJs and producers, who are a little common. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devoke water 19:02, 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. Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Hossein Hejazi[edit]

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

Lacks WP:RS sources. Fails Notability standards as it stands Jenyire2 05:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 05:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see zero newspaper articles and only 1 PR-web type of web article. I'm not sure what he's done that rates WP:GNG, because it's unclear from the text. It appears he owns companies and employs people, but an ordinary amount of people. I represented about 1,500 people as a committee person. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 9 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 Super3 Series. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Super3 Series[edit]

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

Lacks WP:GNG entirely Jenyire2 05:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 05:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super3 Series. There was some sort of one-year? merger, probably COVID-induced: [42]. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super3 Series, as mentioned it ran combined with Super2 in 2020, and as there is no 2020 Super2 season article (next?) the series article - which should have a bit added about 2020, I'll see if I can do that at some point - is the logical target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retarget~~ Redirect to Super3 Series, assuming at least something about the 2020 season is added there, otherwise delete. Should a 2020 Super2 article be created, that article should describe the Super3 season as well so it should be redirected there if/when that is done. A7V2 (talk) 12:58, 9 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 10:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Turner (Atchison, KS)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable philanthropist. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick click on the "news" link above shows a number of newsworthy articles, and based on the results I'd say that the subject does pass WP:GNG and further brings in the ideals from the essay WP:IMPACT. The article could stand some editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. I don't see "a number of newsworthy articles." Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 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 merge to Matrimony.com. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Matrimony[edit]

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

Wholly promotional article. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with parent company Matrimony.com which appears to be a very notable company in India. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 22:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article creator) Fulfills wp:GNG and WP:NCORP in its own right and continues to be notable. If the nominator is unhappy with article he is free to add a balance. I suggest this be included, that I found in a minute, further research may lead to more. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it is worth, quickly I see at least mentions in three scholarly publications.[43] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are only passing mentions about its targeting wealthier clients, and do not back up the website's importance as an entity independent of its parent company. Information on the website and the controversies surrounding it (as you linked) can absolutely be included in Matrimony.com but I do not believe it deserves an article to itself. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of mentioned in passing is "If you mention something in passing, you mention it briefly while you are talking or writing about something else."Collins. The said research papers are not "talking or writing about something else". Thus Elite Matrimony is not mentioned in passing, as is claimed, as is evident from the titles of the papers: (1) "From arranged to online: A study of courtship culture in India, (2) "Technology driven online matrimonial services: An India-specific review" and (3) "The imagery of Indian matchmaking: Representations of community, class and gender in a transnational online matrimonial market". "Elite Matrimony" is what the research papers are talking about. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with its parent article per Pinktoebeans. Plus it would help beef up the Matrimony.com (start-class) article. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 19:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matrimony.com. It's not notable enough to warrant it's own article and matrimony.com is not large enough to need it's content split into separate articles. Suonii180 (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stomp! Shout! Scream![edit]

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

Non notable film, a WP:BEFORE shows nothing that could help it pass WP:NFILM. Winner of minor and obscure awards does not indicate notability. Tagged since 2017. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2020-03 Jay Wade Edwards ✓ keep

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found this [[44]] and nothing else. Fails NFILM/GNG IMO. Kolma8 (talk) 21:18, 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. Tone 10:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scotts Station, Kentucky[edit]

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

GNIS calls it a locale, Rennick calls it a railroad station with a post office and a parsonage. Topos show a railroad point with a couple buildings. Newspapers.com reveals the post office was located within a store, and that the parsonage also had an accompanying church. There was some stuff here, but locales lack legal recognition as a community, so WP:GEOLAND #1 isn't met. Coverage seems to be passing mentions, so I don't think WP:GNG is met, either. This also calls it a locale. Hog Farm _Talk 17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A church, parsonage, post office, station and some buildings. This sounds like a community and a brief search soon establishes that we have this under its other name of Wilmore, Kentucky. See WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly oppose a merger, as @Andrew Davidson:, this site is 57 miles (92 km) away from Wilmore. The Scott Station in Wilmore seems to be an apparently unrelated bed and breakfast. A merger would not be appropriate, as the content is not related to the target at all. Hog Farm _Talk 18:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a merger is inappropriate per Hog Farm and there is no indication of GEOLAND being met. "Sounds like a community" is not a valid argument. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if it sounds/looks like a duck on the other hand.....

Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrew's findings are interesting, but unfortunately a false positive. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another useless town stub. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:39, 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 redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 6). Tone 10:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niketan Madhok[edit]

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

No-notable model/actor. No in-depth coverage at all. Has been a contestant on a popular Tv show but has not won it. Most of the little coverage he has in the press is when he is mentioned with actor Salman Khan, every thing else is just passing mentions. I think the person in question does not warrant a standalone page on Wikipedia. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 18:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes notability guidelines as per WP:BASIC. --Excutient^Talk 23:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Bigg Boss 6 as it appear to be a case of WP:BLP1E. I can't see if he has done anything notable in his career except Bigg Boss 6 where he was not even the winner. GSS ^💬 14:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 6) as there is nothing much in reliable sources beyond his participation in Big Boss. Although a cursory search shows many sources, most of these are regular P3 reporting. There is hardly any in-depth article about the subject.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:42, 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. Tone 10:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Ali (cricketer, born 1971)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd image there's probably additional sources in Urdu/Punjabi out there too for this guy. But yeah, keep per Lugnuts. StickyWicket (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases including scorecards which are not significant coverage; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of a suitable list or redirect to. Trivial pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG and no suggestion that there is much of a chance of finding more in depth sources given his short career. Lack of a linked article on Urdu language Wikipedia further suggests that sources will be difficult to find. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anybody want to provide native-language sources? Anyone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until we can establish notability without raising any doubts. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 06:59, 9 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. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 23:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duntech[edit]

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

No evidence in the article or via search that this is a notable manufacturer or researcher. StarM 17:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ran into this page and decided to improve it. The only original 2 sources were both dead. I found lot's of other articles and even one NY Times article about it. They are a high end speaker manufacturer. I found bunch of forum discussions, but of course those are not reliable sources. However, there seems to be a lot of interest in this brand and even though they don't have massive news coverage, I think it should still remain. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm having trouble accessing the NYT one at the moment, but the Syndey Morning Herald seems to just be one sentence in an article about speaker companies. You did a great job (thanks!), but I'm not sure those will be significant enough coverage to meet WP:ORG. StarM 01:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply NY Times comes up fine for me. You can also try the archive version.Lesliechin1 (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Back in the day I made dozens of dubious stub articles on companies and products many of which aren't notable per the long-standing dis inclusionist narrative. Whether articles like this, which I've also come across in other subject areas by other editors as well, are kept depends on which way the wind blows on the low cost of data versus the harm they do to a professional encyclopedic image. B137 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Flowery language doesn't help, not much notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Flowery languaqge " is a reason for editing, not deletion. The article of course should not give the actual prices, and need not do so , because they are promioent in the refeences. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not seeing a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they make very expensive speakers. Poeple with money to burn buy them. Before they buy the speakers they read reviews of the speakers in audiophile magazines. There appear to be many such reviews (see GBooks). Meets WP:NCORP. Possibly (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of evidence in the article and the search links above. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about the company and not about any of their products. The applicable SNG is WP:NCORP. I am unable to find any references which discuss the company in-depth. Of the references in the article and mentioned above, none meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP as follows:

The Recording, Mixing, and Mastering Reference Handbook is a one-word mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Sydney Morning Herald is a one-word mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH

NYT provides a short review of a product, the Duntech Sovereign 2001, but fails to provide any in-depth details on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound profiles the founder but only mentions the company in passing with no in-depth details, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Business Review Weekly comments on the company exporting products to Asia and Europe but it is difficult to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria as only a snippet view is available.
Classic HiFi reviews the Duntech Sovereign 2001, zero information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
HeyNow Hi-Fi profiles the company but the profile was provided by the company (e.g. use of the word "we" and "our" throughout) and is therefore not Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
Home Theater HiFi reviews a set of speakers, zero information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Hi-Fi Classic is a photo of some speakers, zero info on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
The Sensible Sound reviews/discusses the Stateman model, only a snippet view available but no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Stereophile is a single mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
High End News reviews the Sovereign, does not discuss the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Digital Audio and Compact Disc Review provides a review of the Sovereign 2001 with no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH

None of the references can be used to establish notability of the company. That said, there appears to be more than sufficient references for articles on some of the speaker models and the content here could be repurposed. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Orson, Douglas (1987-08-09). "Expatriate U.S. company hears sound of success as its hi-tech loudspeakers heat up exports Doun Under". United Press International. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14.
  The article notes:
  The astonishing success story of Duntech in exporting such high-priced audiophile equipment lies in the excellence of the products. ... Duntech International's history goes back to 1963 in the United States, where it had established itself as a world leader in antenna systems.
  Between 1963 and 1972, it designed and made almost all of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's ground-based communications and telemetry antenna systems for such projects as the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft and for satellites.
  During this time, the company also was involved in designing and manufacturing the antenna system for the U.S. president's world-wide, emergency communications system installed at the White House annex.
2. Dawson, Stephen (1998-09-29). "SA Is Making Itself Heard". The Canberra Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14.
  The article notes: "One of the most respected names is Duntech. But it isn't widely known. You won't find Duntech speakers in consumer electronics shops, only in high-end hi-fi shops. Take the company's new "more affordable" range, the Gemstone series. ... In addition, Duntech uses crossover networks with gentle slopes to reduce phase-shift effects on different frequencies, with the drivers placed at different depths in the box to ensure their signals arrive at the same time at the listener."
3. Frith, David (1991-12-16). "A Big Speaker Legacy - Short Circuits". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14.
  The article notes: "There have been major changes at Duntech, the Adelaide-based manufacturer which makes some of the world's best high-fidelity loudspeakers. ... Duntech's mighty Sovereigns, Dunleavy masterpieces which stand more than two-metres tall and take a team of four to deliver and install, have been hailed in some sections of the US audio press as 'the most accurate loudspeakers in the world'. ... Already we are seeing a much larger range of Duntech models, quite a few at prices Australians can afford."
4. Frith, David (1990-05-21). "Hear, Here - For $15,000 - Short Circuits". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14.
  The article notes, "The Australian-made Duntech Sovereign 2001 loudspeakers, which have been termed the most accurate loudspeakers in the world, are immense structures, more than two metres high and almost a metre in depth. Painstakingly constructed in Adelaide, they are earning big export dollars for Duntech in the United States, where they have been widely praised by audio magazines such as Stereo Review and Stereophile."
5. Frith, Daivd (1990-06-04). "Our Speakers Come of Age - The Hi-Fi Show". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14.
  The article notes, "Headed by expatriate American John Dunlavey, Duntech has built a thriving trade in the US, Asia and Europe. Digital Audio magazine of the US has called the huge Duntech Sovereigns the 'world's most accurate loudspeaker'. The Gramophone of the UK has called them 'pure ecstasy', and Audio magazine of the US said that the Duntech Black Knights supplied 'easily the best sound' at this year's Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Duntech to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:54, 14 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 10:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Cavita[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. JTtheOG (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for boxers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 9 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 10:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the Techies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I was unable to find any reliable sources and the four sources currently being used are either primary sources or only mention the podcast in passing. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the podcast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 9 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 HDFC Bank. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HDB Financial Services[edit]

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

A non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search shows majority of the google hits in the companies own website thus (Primary and unreliable), press releases, user generated sources, & mere announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. The article is badly sourced and it seems to be difficult to improve it. Lechatjaune (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have meant “per nomination”? Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I corrected it. Lechatjaune (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to HDFC Bank. Doesn't seem like there is enough coverage for a separate article yet. M4DU7 (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HDFC Bank which is the parent company. I fully agree that there is not enough material to justify an independent article. A redirect serves the purpose well.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I had originally done a NAC on this AfD, closing it as a redirect. It has since been reopened. I understand that I had closed it before 14 days had passed and it would have been better to let an admin close it. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HDFC Bank as an alternative to deletion. Topic fails WP:NCORP, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:39, 14 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 10:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hutt Valley Spartans[edit]

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

Local club team that plays in local competition of which even the competition article was deleted American Football Wellington. Fails WP:NTEAM, WP:CLUB or WP:GNG NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete club teams typically do not meet the notability threshold for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Some club teams are notable, but this does not seem to be one of those few exceptions. Instead, it more looks like Wikipedia is functioning as a free web hosting server. If legit sources are found, naturally I'll change position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable New Zealand American Football team. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 20:04, 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. Tone 10:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan and Denny Kirkwood[edit]

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

Two actors here, neither of which meet individually meet WP:NACTOR. Neither the pair or the individuals appear to meet WP:SIGCOV, or WP:GNG on a wider scale. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time that Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror. All statements on BLPs need to be sourced to reliable sources. Since there are no sources that are reliable, we can source nothing, so the page should be blanked per that one policy, which means we should delete based on BLP policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability Devoke water 19:04, 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 Robert Winthrop Kean. Tone 10:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Kean[edit]

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

This "political spouse and philanthropist" fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. While this person may be genetically linked to famous politicians, notability is not inherited. KidAd talk 01:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so people aren't automatically entitled to have articles just because they happen to be related to other people who have articles. This doesn't claim that she's ever done anything that would have gotten her over any of our inclusion criteria, however — other than her genealogy, literally the only other thing this says about her at all is that she was a hospital volunteer, which is not "inherently" notable work in any sense. And the only useful source present here (reduplicated as two separate footnotes even though it's the same source) is an obituary, which is not enough "coverage" to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only source anybody can be bothered to find — it also cited an Ancestry.com record to support her marriage date, but I've stripped that because we're not allowed to cite Wikipedia content to genealogy databases. She's not automatically notable just because she existed, and neither the sourcing nor the substance on offer here are enough to get her over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the wife of a governor may be enough on its own to make one notable, although even there I would want to see multiple substantial sources, we do not have articles on all wives of governors, and for good reason. In Michigan there is one governor that the records are not clear enough so it is not 100% clear which of his wives was even his wife when he was governor. wives of governors did not become true public figures in most states until the mid-20th century. I can actually find a full length article on Jason Love, husband of Mia Love, but I am not convinced that is reason to make an article on him. We maybe could say a little more on him than we do in the Mia Love article, but there is no reason for a seperate article. If you read closely, Kean was the wife of a member of the US house of Representatives. That is not a position that confers notability, period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the person who created this article has affilcted Wikipedia with a huge number of articles on non-notable New Jersey politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Kean.Djflem (talk) 17:37, 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 deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kubben Quiñonez[edit]

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

Promotional, non-notable, and non-encyclopedic. Claimed to be a notable "influencer", which I think it means someone whose only significance is getting publicity for themselves. He had a former career as a model, but I see no evidence that he was notable in that either.

The Forbes ref is from a "former contributor", meaning it is not a RS for anything. The other references are equally useless. I have not searched Google, because what I find there will be his publicity. There's no reason anyone would ever give him significant coverage.

The article was written by a disclosed paid editor , who is naïve enough to admit "an interest in making Wikipedia articles of celebrities from all over the world who has a good following base but they don't have the visibility on search engines. I am a digital marketing expert and a new editor on Wikipedia who's willing to create articles of celebrities and give them visibility with help of Wikipedia."

He created his first articles in Draft (and they are still there); once he became autoconfirmed, he created this in mainspace, which is of course against god practice for paid editing --it's time we made that policy. I thought about moving this to draft also, but I don't think there's a chance of an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree with nominator, I bookmarked this (uncreated at that time) page yesterday when I read the disclosure and sure enough a non-reliably sourced vanity type article appears today JW 1961 Talk 19:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article, your contribution to Wikipedia is really helping people. I'm just trying to make an article of Jonathan who is an internet celebrity with a good following base on social media. he has been awarded for Philantrophy in 2018 by influencer awards Monaco^[5] and influencer of the year 2019 by influencer awards Monaco.^[6] I think he's information on Wikipedia will help the internet users.

I know I don't have proper references for the article and all your claims are true but I'm trying to gather all the proper references, by Monday 8 February 2021 i shall have all the proper references and i will make sure im following to all your claims and making the content encyclopedic. Mohirfan03 1:20, 7 February (IST)

Delete possibly speedy delete under WP:G11 and WP:A7 given the sourcing is either non-independent sourcing or clearly paid for press. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By tomorrow 8 February 2021, i shall have all the proofs regarding the claims. I will link all the sources properly this time. I have just joined Wikipedia please allow me to make this right. Mohirfan03 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2021 (IST)

Comment I have tagged the article for speedy deletion under WP:G11, there's no need to keep a paid for vanity page up for a whole week, especially after WP:BEFORE shows up nothing that is notability-lending. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. Deb (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ FT
^ The Times
^ harpers
^ ((citation|url=https://www.retailtimes.co.uk/superdrug-announces-first-beauty-box-launch-curated-by-guru-nadine-baggott/%7Ctitle=Retail Times}
^ "Philantrophy award in 2018 by Influencer Awards Monaco". Influencer Awards Monaco. Retrieved 6 February 2021.
^ "Influencer of the year 2019 award in 2019 by Influencer Awards Monaco". Influencer Awards Monaco. Retrieved 6 February 2021.

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