The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 06:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adivaram[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not meet WP:BASIC nor WP:NFILM. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NFILM. No major achievements. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tear from the Red. Really like the idea of redirecting as an WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Botchla[edit]

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

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Most references are trivial, unrelated to the song itself, or appear to be original research from primary sources. Notability is not inherited from the band or from the album, both of which may be notable. This song does not appear to be. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. It’s also excruciatingly dull, but should be deleted even if it wasn’t. Springnuts (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a number of references do not even mention this track. Many are simply mentions. One word, like this. Fails WP:NMUSIC. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tear from the Red. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. Most sources are already covered in the album. SBKSPP (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic Team[edit]

Drastic Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Insufficient sources that go in depth on the subject. Doesn't currently appear to pass WP:GNG. [1][2]. These sources might count toward GNG, but I'd like to see more before I declare this a GNG pass. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm the article creator, i had to remove a big portion of the page because it was considered copyright infringement but it wasn't considered that the page that i copied was of my own website (laboratoryleak.com). If you remove the violation i can put back the sources that go in depth on the subject. Thank you. --Francesco espo (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. At the time of the copyright violation, I checked all the sources in the article and didn't see any sources not currently listed. Feel free to provide links to sources here though and we'll take a look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have five sources for this stub as it currently exists. Three of them (the Washington Post, the Telegraph and CNET) are solidly reliable sources per WP:RSP. These three sources have a good deal of information about the subject and constitute WP:SIGCOV; additionally, the group is the sole focus of the entire CNET article (which was written by a CNET staff editor). These look like they easily establish notability on their own; I'm sure that I could also dig into RSN archives and figure out what the consensus is on Unherd and Skynews (I'm not familiar with these publications so I don't have an opinion on them). The article may be short, but there's more than enough information in the sources to flesh something longer out if anyone were so inclined. jp×g 06:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 per WP:MEDPOP, the popular press are often not reliable for scientific claims. As for the CNET piece, it is lovlingly PROFRINGE. As for RSP, the last discussion on the reliability of CNET was 6 years ago, and it states that CNET is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles., not reliable in general, and lab-leak claims fall well outside CNET's wheelhouse in consumer electronics, and the coverage has not been mirrored by other more reputable news sources. As for the other articles, they are incidental mentions and do not consitute SIGCOV. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Alina Chan (who wrote the Telegraph article describing them as a group of diligent online sleuths) is a molecular biology postdoctoral researcher with a specialty in cell engineering, who seems to have a substantial number of publications specifically about COVID-19. Obviously, an article published by a long-running reliable news outlet doesn't clear WP:MEDRS simply because it was written by an expert in the field and subjected to the same editorial oversight we trust for all other articles, but I'm not aware of any MEDRS claims being made in this article; it's related to the biomedical subject of COVID-19 in the same way that the death of Socrates was related to the biomedical subject of acute hemlock toxicity. jp×g 17:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I don't know how being a postdoctoral researcher is supposed to impress me, it's not really at the level we would expect for the "subject matter expert". Alina Chan is very active in pro "lab leak" twitter and is strongly associated with "Drastic" and other prominent "lab leak twitter" figures like Yuri Deigin, so her writing can't be described as an independent source on the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Apologies, I am a little confused by this message. On which matter? jp×g 19:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per previously expressed concerns about a (now disclosed) COI and per Hemiauchenia's analysis. The only other (passing) mention of this group I could find is here, where the sum total of coverage about this group is the following sentence: "For instance, a neuroscientist belonging to a group that claims to independently investigate COVID-19 tweeted that the letter is a diluted version of ideas his group posted online last year." Obvious GNG fail. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:MEDRS is not a notability guideline, so I do not understand how it is relevant for determining notability. As far as I can tell, its relevance to the content at all is tenuous at best, since the article doesn't make any scientific claims whatsoever, nor does it take a position on the "lab leak" being true or false. jp×g 17:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Where in the whole of my comment did I mention MEDRS? Please point it out to me so I can correct it, since I've just done a sanity check but the only bit I see is GNG, which has no relation to MEDRS as far as I know. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:MEDPOP is a subsection of WP:MEDRS. jp×g 19:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And where do I mention that? I was referencing Hemiauchenia' analysis of this not meeting SIGCOV, entirely independent of MEDRS, as should be clear from the rest of my comment where I do not mention that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's an extremely long article -- a feature, in fact -- focusing entirely on this group, from CNET, a website cited in approximately ten thousand articles. There are 16 discussions in the history of RSN where CNET is mentioned; in zero of them was it found to be unreliable for anything. Is there a reason that an article there does not count? jp×g 19:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  GNG has always required multiple sources. CNET here is only one, and it's dubious for something that is so far out of its usual coverage (they don't usually cover controversies and minority theories in biomedical affairs, nor do they appear to cover politics when it's not related to technological matters). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have an opinion on the 20 Minutes piece? It, too, is focused entirely on the group. The site is referenced in over 9000! articles on fr.wiki and 875 here; the author, Manon Aublanc, is an auteur du personnel (per her byline, she rejoindre la rédaction de 20 Minutes and was embauchée au service des infos in 2017). jp×g 21:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've expanded the article substantially with information from its sources, and located an additional one with SIGCOV (although it's in French, and I'm not very familiar with the publication). Every sentence is cited to its source, and all statements are provided with inline attribution (with a few exceptions, like "they are primarily organized on Twitter", which are obviously uncontroversial and all sources say the same thing). It should be noted that this was pretty easy to do without saying anything that fell under WP:BIOMED, or anything that could be construed as falling under WP:BIOMED; there are no statements or implications about the origin of COVID-19, the likelihood of Drastic's hypotheses being true, the validity of their evidence, whether or not they are bozos, et cetera. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to find sources which opine more authoritatively on these issues, and incorporate them into the article, but GNG doesn't require it. jp×g 19:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Hemiauchenia sums up the issues with the article, and in any case I'm sceptical that it meets WP:NORG (which is the standard required for organisations like these, not GNG). For example: The non-substantial mention in WAPO is an opinion piece, not usable for organisation notability. Per RSP, CNET is generally reliable for technology-related articles -- medicine is way outside their specialty. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Hemiauchenia (both the WaPo and the Telegraph items are opinion pieces, and we've no reason to consider CNET reliable for the subject) and the WP:NORG concern raised by ProcrastinatingReader. XOR'easter (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Even after expansion, WP:NORG doesn't seem to be satisfied, the WP:MEDPOP concerns remain, and there's no real indication why this group needs an article rather than being described as part of the story of which they are a part. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 per WP:MEDPOP. Sonofstar (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because a simple "Redirect" will destroy the content. The investigative and partly anoymous scientists had (as far as I can estimate) a big impact concerning the demand of independent scientific investigation of the origin, which is advocated today by many states. In many countries also in Germany, etc. they were the central source of large articles for instance in the serious Neue Züricher Zeitung - globally over 275,000 google hits.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since the start of the AfD (and, indeed, after most of this discussion occurred) there have been new articles primarily focusing on the exploits of this group in The Hindu (RSP entry) ("generally reliable"), Vanity Fair (RSP entry) ("generally reliable"), The Print (no RSP entry, I don't know), and Newsweek (RSP entry) ("case-by-case basis"). jp×g 04:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: redirecting it will mean a soft delete of this article because a significant portion of it or the entire content will be lost. Kaspadoo (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Another head scratcher here, this is relevant, notable and well sourced- the additions made by @JPxG: make a huge difference. This is one of those instances where more information is better than less, and this group has played a notable role in our current discourse....Wikipedia should absolutely be a resource for learning more about this group and their actions. Thank you all! CatDamon 19:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the added Vanity Fair article and other recent additions, clearly passes GNG. Zoozaz1 talk 23:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Please do not redirect anywhere unless content about the group is available there (a reverse WP:MERGEWHAT). I almost brought this to WP:RFD over that before, and if you just leave it that way, I'm sure it will end up there again. Redirection is not a polite delete—you would be leaving behind a search term that will mislead, confuse, and/or disappoint readers. If your concern is with recreation of the article, we have a process for that, and it's not "effectively create an easter egg via redirection".

If there's consensus that the group should be mentioned, by all means, redirect there. Just please don't kick the can down the road. (Ping me if needed; not watching this page.) --BDD (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The group passes WP:GNG. The group has received in-depth coverage from the sources listed above, as well as El País. There's a risk of WP:NOTNEWS, but I am not moved by it owing to the length of time corresponding to their coverage. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sources and notable team of scientists. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Putting aside any critique of the group, and simply focusing on notability, it is obvious to me this easily meets WP:GNG on the basis of multiple, reliable sources such as Vanity Fair and The Hindu. Ifnord (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7, G11) . (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian News Network[edit]

Asian News Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Clearly not notable, since I can't find any non-self-published sources on this outlet. The website link does not seem to work, however, I wouldn't tag this as a blatant hoax because there seem to be a few social media pages (albeit with very little traffic). Aspening (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, written like an advert, non-notable (I can't reach website either as Norton 360 blocks it to me as dangerous!) JW 1961 ^Talk 21:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Per A7 and G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G3). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caspersitooo[edit]

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

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

Borderline G11, and I can't find any non-self published sources about this person. Aspening (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete As a hoax, a quick search pulls up absolutely nothing in terms of RS and he sure as hell didn't win anything at the 2020 Billboard Music Awards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per GPL93's search JW 1961 ^Talk 21:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Kilian[edit]

Jennifer Kilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP. Only references are to her own works. Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've found scholarly reviews of her two books on Du Jardin, and fixed some of the grotty Refill2-produced references. PamD 11:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR #3. gidonb (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above passes WP:NAUTHOR #3. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since no reliable secondary sources were presented to support the !keep I'm going with User:HighKing's rationale. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TutorMe[edit]

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

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

Full of promotional content, and only news sources that I can find are paid press releases from newswire. Fails WP:NWEB. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem fit for deletion when there are reliable sources throughout stating that they provide free education and it is linked next to existing pages in the same category. It should be revised to remove any impartiality, which it would appear myself and another impartial editor who reviewed it were doing/did to resolve existing issues and also the external link should be removed to further improve this page.WikiWonderWiki (talk)

• Keep There are plenty of reliable, secondary sources included in the article that discuss the company as the primary subject of the articles. If there are WP:NPOV issues, those can be edited. But this article is nowhere near WP:TNT. Angryapathy (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I can only find 3 reliable sources, among the mess of "company listings", bloggy style news outlets and sources of questionable reliability, so I would appreciate if you could link some of these sources that you found. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as WP:CSD#G7 by Fastily. ✗plicit 07:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumeet Patil[edit]

Sumeet Patil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't qualify WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. I had PROD it. But observed such a neat trick. A user moved it to draft space. This naturally made another user remove the PROD since it was in draft space. And once PROD was removed, the initial user got it back to mainspace! Amazed! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG; Naughty on the draft thing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC) 10:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously not notable. Aspening (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable art director, does not meet WP:NCREATIVE--Whiteguru (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My due diligence did not present any sourcing, aside from the one feature about him teaching people to paint, that shows this subject meets WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR. Missvain (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this was deleted G7 on 07:45, 7 June 2021.... Jeepday (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courtesy delete based on the feedback from experienced editors. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Pally[edit]

Marcia Pally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of the article subject, who is invoking WP:BLPDELETE on the claim of being a non-notable individual. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep Based on the sources in the article, I believe the subject of the article more than passes the threshold for inclusion according to WP standards. Angryapathy (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article has been hijacked by one or more editors who have used it to post misleading, disparaging, and poorly sourced information about the subject. This harassment has extended across a period of well over a year and has corresponded to a real-life pattern of harassment occurring across the same time period. It seems very likely that the offending edits to the article have been made by the real-life harasser, and that he has been using multiple screen names to do so, in violation of Wikipedia policy on "sockpuppeting". One strongly suspects that 'Angryapathy', who on this page argues for the article’s preservation, is yet another alias for this same offender. Moreover, the fact that he posted a comment on this page less than three hours after the deletion notice was posted strongly suggests that he watches this article closely and is personally invested in its preservation and content, in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. The subject herself has appealed to Wikipdeia for the deletion of this article, to relieve her of this ongoing harassment. It should be removed immediately.Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest you read Wikipedia's article on assuming good faith. Angryapathy (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  One assumes good faith, initially, in the absence of reason to assume otherwise. As indicated in my comment above, there is abundant reason to override that initial assumption in this case. In any event, whoever the person or persons might be behind all the screen names, the article has been edited in an factually inaccurate, contentious and harassing manner and should be deleted. I note again, for whoever is the referee of this discussion, that Angryapathy responded to my comment within 24 minutes of its posting. He obviously has a personal interest in this article. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per article subject's request. Furius (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: something’s not right about this article: (a) evidence of COI, (b) too much evidence about a living person from 35 and 40 years ago with no updating, (c) evidence that appears within the last 20 years relies on evidence twice as old, (d) obscure evidence looks like someone spent a lot of time drudging up sexual material, inappropriate for a low-profile Wikipedia biography, in a confused homophobic attempt to defame, etc. The Talk page for this article shows an editing war and attempt to control the page by “PaulKovnick,” “AlexaVamos” and others. Overall, material not reliable for Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosyoua1b2c3 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC) — Whosyoua1b2c3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Per article subject's request and WP:TNT. Beccaynr (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject’s work in regard to HIV/AIDS, her leadership positions in three national organizations (GLAAD, Feminists for Free Expression, ACLU) and her work as a prominent journalist, film critic, and political, social and cultural critic in the U.S. and Germany certainly pass the Wikipedia threshold for inclusion. The subject also meets the criterion of being “part of the enduring historical record in a specific field” for her work in GLAAD and FFE, and maybe the criterion of being nominated for well-known awards (Grawemeyer Award, H.L. Mencken Award (https://menckenawards.blogspot.com/2019/11/normal.html)) and the selection of one of her books by the U.N. Committee on Education for Justice. I am surprised this issue is being discussed and that the subject seems

to have initiated this.

The subject is a “public figure” and influencer. In addition to leadership roles in three national civil society organizations and other public institutions, the subject co-hosted a television series (albeit long ago), co-hosted a weekly radio program for several years, was a contributing editor of an internationally circulated magazine, addressed the World Economic Forum, and the vast majority of her publications have been in popular newspapers and magazines in the U.S. and Germany and more recently on the internet. It is her prominence in civil society as a public intellectual that makes her an appropriate subject for WP, not her academic career. But that also means that the subject has a limited right to privacy and almost no right to privacy in regard to her public life. That raises the question of whether she can ask to control her WP entry, request its deletion or object to information of general public interest that comes from second-party sources like books and newspapers, or from her own publications and public appearances.

It should also be noted that the subject seems to have been editing the page under at least four different names or proxies (Margarethell, pinkpostitzyxcb, Alisdairxing3153!, JmtAU2017), as well as under her own name, and appears to be posting on this talk as Aaabbbyyyzzz.

From her comments here and the editing by the subject or her proxies over the years, it seems that the subject may think that WP is a PR outlet and that she can control its content. As an admirer of her work and career, I find this very disturbing. WP is not a personal website or a platform for a public figure’s publicist or PR firm.AlexaVamos (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC) — AlexaVamos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Alexa: I am not the subject of the article. I am her friend and advocate, as noted above. Given the patent absurdity of all these parties arguing over who is or might be whom, I note again the absurd and deleterious effects of all this anonymity. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I agree that anonymity has a clear downside. I don't know what would be the best approach, but I think eliminating it might have a chilling effect on WP that could do more harm than good.AlexaVamos (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while I understand the distress that this business may be causing, it would be a travesty for the subject not to be in WP. As her friend, you must know that there is no serious study of HIV/AIDs activism or the gay rights movement that doesn't mention Vito Russo, and there is probably no book or documentary about Russo that doesn't mention Marcia Pally. I pulled Michael Schiavi's definitive biography of Russo, Celluloid Activist (2011), off my shelf and her collaboration with Russo is mentioned at least half a dozen times. I don't understand how anyone can say that a central figure in the gay rights movement is not notable.AlexaVamos (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at subject's request. Notability is barely marginal. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE request and the borderline notability of the subject. In addition, it is clear from the history there has been a long-term edit war with similarly-behaving single-purpose accounts on two sides, with one side pushing to include material on Pally's personal life, supposed early history and early work (users: Mo wie, Millieprendergast, PaulKovnick, AlexaVamos, AvAdv, Pinkpostitzyxcba, Dreifoos) and the other side disputing the accuracy of this material, removing it, and pushing to focus the article primarily on Pally's academic career (users: 141.20.190.194, Marciapally, Pinkpostitzyx, MargaretheII). The added material does not contribute to notability in any way and appears to violate WP:BLPPRIVACY, so I am inclined to take the allegations of a concerted campaign of sockpuppet harassment seriously (although this does not excuse possible sockpuppetry in reaction to this perceived sockpuppetry). We should not let the allegations by one camp of sockpuppetry from the other camp distract us from the main issues of privacy and notability that we are here to determine, we should not be providing a platform for such harassment, and BLPDELETE is exactly the right mechanism to cut it off. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per article subject's request. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Gyeongchang[edit]

Princess Gyeongchang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject's notability completely relies on her relation to other people. As we all know, notability is not inherited. WP is also not a genealogy site. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This article was also moved out of draft space by the creator over another editor's objection. Kbabej (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, looks abundantly notable as a royal consort with an entry in the professionally edited Encyclopedia of Korean Culture ([3]) and another in a recent biographical dictionary of Korean women 한국여성인물사전, excerpted here. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep She was emphasizing documented in reliable sources by historians because of her historical significance. A daughter of Duke does not make her notable automatically, but just to reiterate: this woman was the queen consort of the ruler of a major historical kingdom which makes her a high-ranking member of the Royal Court of Goryeo. Goryeo dynasty's political system was absolute monarchy so clearly passes WP:NPOL. I don't see how WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Her position is very high and important enough in the harem hierarchy for her to stay, but her and many other similar articles are nonetheless problematic, because they are very thin on personal information: they consists of names, dates, titles and genealogy, but no personal information. What was she like as a person, did she participate in any known political act, plot, conflict, memorable event? What was her relationship like to other influential people at court, her sympathies, enemies and views? As the article stands now, she appear to be a blank sheat of a person, so it's no wonder the article is nominated; she appears to be just a genealogical footnote. The article really should be developed and expanded with more personal information which confirms her relevance, otherwise a nomination would always appear reasonable even if I don't support it. VocalIndia (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. I'd like to see WP:NOTINHERITED retired as an AFD rationale as it's so frequently misapplied. pburka (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how you believe NPOL applies here? The subject doesn't fit any of that criteria. In an absolute monarchy, the ruler would have the power and she would have none, save for perhaps her household. --Kbabej (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She was a high ranking member of the royal court, as VocalIndia explained above. I imagine she had at least as much influence as various historical British Lords who may have never even been introduced at Westminster. pburka (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a lot of speculation, considering no RS state that. I could just as easily assume she had none. --Kbabej (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could. That leaves only the strong GNG argument from Nizolan. pburka (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the scholarly sources I linked do in fact state the role she played in the politics of the time so there's no need to speculate about this based on her title. She was seen as an opponent of the king who succeeded her husband, accused of plotting to install her son on the throne, consequently reduced to commoner status and deposed in 1277. Some rather brief details are also available in English in Henthorn, Korea: The Mongol Invasions (1963) here (notes 28 and 30). —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify my analogy further, we presume that Lords are notable simply for inheriting a title, even if there's no evidence that they ever voted or debated at Westminster, and we know from historical records that many didn't. I don't think it's a stretch to afford at least the same presumption of notability to royal consorts, whom we know attended court. pburka (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP In Imperial Ranks, Duke was a nobles and has a high ranks, so i think everyone who came from Duke's family such as Princess Gyeongchang who was Duke's daughter might be came from a nobles family and also, she become a Goryeo King's consort and that was not just a lowly concubine like a palace maid.....so i hope that you wanna think again if you wanna delete Princess Gyeongchang's article...Please don't and never equated the past's ranks and now era's ranks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningsih ODINN (talk • contribs)
• Keep hum? really? According to old Korean political system, the queen stay at superme highest level. Per above, yes Goryeo dynasty's was absolute monarchy, at that time the King and Queen were equivalent to god and goddess. It means she has authority to rule and to do everything and she can kill anyone she want. She appears as a significant player in numerous histories of the Korean kingdom's game of thrones and so is clearly notable. As with many figures from antiquity, the information we have is limited but it has endured for millenia and so is very WP:LASTING. Taung Tan (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and agree per VocalIndia and Nizolan. Almost all Korean queens have had considerable power; such queens have sometimes been referred as the "power behind the throne". Unlike other queens from other parts of the world, queens of Korea had played major roles in the political affairs and cases of succession to the throne. And thus, it meets NPOL. Also, it has reliable sources mentioned by Nizolan and passes GNG. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Royal consort with perfectly acceptable sourcing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nizolan. Heart ^(talk) 23:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per above, Royal consort. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Don't we have an article about Rachel Meghan Markle ? Pldx1 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but expand I am convinced by the sources provided by Nizolan that this person is sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone article, but VocalIndia is spot on in saying that her and many other similar articles are nonetheless problematic, because they are very thin on personal information: they consists of names, dates, titles and genealogy, but no personal information [...] she appears to be just a genealogical footnote. When all we have is basically a glorified genealogical entry, we might as well merge or redirect to some related article (such as their title or parent/sibling/spouse/offspring). I would expand it myself using the aforementioned sources, if not for the fact that the machine translation from Korean I got was absolutely atrocious. TompaDompa (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 23:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Laura Daniels[edit]

Alexis Laura Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable entertainer, no in depth coverage in reliable sources and nothing remarkable that would qualify under our N criteria. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ARoseWolf 17:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to find enough sources to justify inclusion on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete I am new to this community and I guess we all have to start from somewhere. If you could kindly inform me about how many sources would be enough to justify it's inclusion on WP, I would kindly oblige and present them. This is a new article we are looking to improve over time so kindly bear with us. Mayorbiney

  It's not about the number of sources, but the quality of them. I am extremely doubtful that there exists the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that is required to justify an article. firefly ( t · c ) 11:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mayorbiney, a subject should be notable from the outset and sources should be provided when creating an article that will, at a minimum, pass the basic notability guidelines for inclusion. AfD is not for article clean-up. AfD is to determine whether there is a community consensus the subject meets the requirements mentioned above by Firefly. We conduct a WP:BEFORE search for reliable sources to verify notability which is what Firefly is referencing below. Please do not take anything said here personal against you. Editors are !voting based on what they determine when looking at the article themselves. --ARoseWolf 13:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mayorbiney, please do supply the sources that you have. It is ok if they are not in English or if they are not online, but they do need to conform to the guidelines laid out by firefly, i.e. significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Furius (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I likewise cannot find any significant coverage of this person. Mentions on a student blog do not count unfortunately. firefly ( t · c ) 11:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This read like a promotional piece. Mayorbiney, if you are new to this community, please accept this as a learning experience and consider the decent advice offered above. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Subject may be notable some day, but not yet.Rogermx (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast Mode[edit]

The Fast Mode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

other than some rather brief press releases, I can't find any in depth coverage of this publication and most hits are for the generic term. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The given references are listings and brief mention in a co-authored report press release all of which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are not finding the coverage about the firm needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no academic rating for the magazine so it validity is in doubt. If that could be supplied then it might be worth something but at the moment it must fail WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 13:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpna Singh-Chitnis[edit]

Kalpna Singh-Chitnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't see how this meets WP:NACTOR, WP:POET, or given the references WP:GNG even. Also the external links are just spam - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as said by the nomination. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are a few hits on Google Scholar, but at least one (International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature) looks like it might be a predatory journal. pburka (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find anything through Google, Jstor, or other sourcing that shows me this subject merits inclusion via WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR. Missvain (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Quill, Putney[edit]

The Quill, Putney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The place is notable – a coaching inn dating back to 1854. Details of the original construction appear in The Reporter and The Jurist and there is naturally further documention in more recent sources such as The Fascination of London and Putney & Roehampton Through Time. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not see enough independent, reliable sources that discuss this pub. While it may be old, it does not meet WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:ITSOLD is not a valid argument. Two sources in article are pub databases, not significant coverage, one does not even mention this pub, and one is mere passing mention. The above Jurist link is a primary source about a legal case, not significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per above, Two sources in article are pub databases, . No notable coverage. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 14:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystera[edit]

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

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

Has already been PRODded in 2011, with the dePROD rationale on the talk page being "As it is merely a list of tracks it is difficult to site anything other than the CD's themselves. The page is accurate and I have found it very useful", which I don't think is a good reason to keep an unsourced article. I was unable to find any sources other than one review for 'The Best Of Mystera' from MusikWoche here. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and protect to avoid being recreated. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Also, what did Mystera have to do with classical music? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt: - does not meet WP:NMUSIC --Whiteguru (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Patel[edit]

Kevin Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Student activist fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 18:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Sources in the article meet the GNG and the nom hasn't given any reason to discount them. The Men's Health and LA Times articles, for example, seem great. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's sufficient independent reliable sources with significant coverage to meet GNG

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Voyage LA	~ Interview			~ Partial
The Renewal Project	~ Interview	? Sponsored content		? Unknown
GreenBiz				✔ Yes
Vox				✔ Yes
Men's Health				✔ Yes
LA Times				✔ Yes
In the Know (same as the Yahoo Finance link)				✔ Yes
Datebook/SF Chronicle			passing mention	✘ No
Times Standard				✔ Yes
Error: a source must be specified				? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Clearly enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Just some caveats. The Times-Standard source is only a passing mention and the profile in GreenBiz doesn't really count as coverage. But everything else checks out. — BriefEdits (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hobit and Qwaiiplayer's extensive assessment above. The article could certainly be improved. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 13:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We should keep this article and just delete the things that are not good. Don't delete the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverSideSong (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WE SHOULD KEEP THIS ARTICLE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverSideSong (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Can someone explain why this article is up for deletion? I don't see any issues on my end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gildsons (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article doesn't raise any red flags for me and is constant with other articles for youth climate activists, including Sophia Kianni and Kevin Mtai. There are some improvements to be made, but don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sim-Marcel-Bilal (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WOW!! this is the most active I have seen Wikipedia in a while. Who is Kevin Patel? I just reviewed, this article is actually solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.46.252 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep kevin's a youth climate activist. The activity this is generating is sus, is it a race issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sim-Marcel-Bilal (talk • contribs) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Let's not lie, we all know Wikipedia is racist. Kevin is just SOL at this point. Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.46.252 (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely a little biased but can be cleaned up a little bit. Keep. Kylerschin (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the source assessment -- youth climate activists are covered in different ways than our typical "biography" pipeline, so the "activist" angle is something we need to keep an eye on, but that doesn't mean the articles are non-notable. Sadads (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, disregarding the extremely obvious brigading, Patel has received significant coverage in Vox and the LA Times, meaning that he passes GNG. Some of the other sources marked as green in the table above seem to be little more than passing mentions however. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Qwaiiplayer's list shows that it passes WP:GNG. Article definitely could be cleaned up though. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No major faults found in the article, can be fixed by editing.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 07:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Hetherton-Miau[edit]

Madeleine Hetherton-Miau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promo/vanity piece by COI editor on a non-notable filmmaker. The refbombing consists mostly of coverage of her company or their productions, not of herself, plus a few short bios clearly supplied by the subject or someone close to her; virtually all are primary, and none are RS or provide anything even resembling significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO / WP:FILMMAKER. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly she is very productive, but, the sourcing, and my own due diligence via the web doesn't present anything that convinces me this subject passes WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A lot of the references are about her work or her company, not about her. I liked the first two references. Alack, its a deltree. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "merge" proponents have not responded to the concerns that there is nothing useful to merge. Sandstein 06:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing the dragon in popular culture[edit]

Chasing the dragon in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pop culture trivia, with the majority of the article being song lyrics that reference it. The article doesn't explain how 'chasing the dragon' has a cultural impact, and is instead a list of largely uncited trivia, consisting mostly of passing mentions. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia isn't TVTropes. The topic itself is already discussed at Chasing the dragon and there's no reason to create a fork that's just an overgrown and almost entirely unsourced trivia section. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Chasing the dragon. WP:Preserve and WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @7&6=thirteen: Could you expand on which part(s) of this you think could be merged? I'm struggling to see what a directory of lines of dialogue and lyrics from songs mentioning the phrase would contribute to the article. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Could be paragraphs instead of a list. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is so ubiquitous that it is a meme. WP:Not paper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While I certainly think the main Chasing the dragon article could stand to be expanded with sourced information discussing its presence in popular culture, I agree with Nizolan in the fact there doesn't appear to actually be any content here that would be appropriate to merge there. The only bit of information here that is actually based on a reliable, secondary source is in the intro paragraph explaining the concept of "chasing the dragon" itself, and that information is already included in the main article on the topic. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Policy is that sourcing need not be in English for it to count towards notability or verifiability, and arguments based on the sources being in Bulgarian have been given less weight. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Toromanova-Hmelik[edit]

Maria Toromanova-Hmelik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP;GNG can't find any significant coverage about her. Urartuvanking (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Urartuvanking (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Urartuvanking (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete would have redirected to the film but that doesn't exist on WP. Unverifiable, unsourced, no current search. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must be looking at the wrong page, this is the AfD for Maria Toromanova-Hmelik, an article with several sources, some of them online. – Uanfala (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Played a significant role in a notable film and several in theatre. The online sources are all pretty rubbish, but the offline source is an entry in the Encyclopedia of Bulgarian Theatre - the fact that she has an entry there tends to indicate notability imo. Furius (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In addition to what Furius said, I strongly believe offline and non-English language sources are going to be where this subject establishes herself in meeting WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. This academic book, Bulgarian 20th Century in the Arts and Culture calls the subject a "prominent theatre actress". However, I did not find anything else about her, anywhere, outside of that - even searching "Мария Николова Тороманова-Хмелик". Therefore I'm not convinced she passes WP:NACTOR for inclusion in English Wikipedia. Even the Bulgarian Wikipedia article is poorly sourced. I'd be happy to see it drafted if folks think sourcing will magically appear in the next six months. Missvain (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seareching for "Мария Николова Тороманова-Хмелик" comes up with almost no results because in Bulgarian a person's full name (including the middle name) is almost never used. – Uanfala (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not confident enough to cast a !vote, but some sources need to be assessed here: Encyclopedia of Bulgarian Theatre (bg), The Bulgarian Cinema and others like [4]. As Uanfala points out, a strict search for the full name, including middle name, is not really useful. MarioGom (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable Bulgarian actress. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Has appeared in prominent roles in film and was engaged as an actress at the Ivan Vazov National Theatre, which is Bulgaria's national theatre, and therefore passes WP:NACTOR. Meets WP:BIO in my opinion. That she doesn't have much of a digital/internet presence, I suspect has to do with her "heyday" being in the early 20th-century. Confident there must be some offline sources. ExRat (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 11:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Wheels[edit]

Neo Wheels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails NCORP. The company has a couple of passing mentions, but no significant coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. M4DU7 (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Amazingly, there is one source that mentions this company, but it is a far cry from GNG or NCORP material. Many such cases... jp×g 22:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No secondary, reliable searches came up on the search I performed; all were primary. No WP:BASIC here. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the refbombing is a problem, that can and should be fixed editorially. Sandstein 06:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wallbox[edit]

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

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

Fails notability requirements miss significant coverage. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has in-depth coverage in multiple WP:RS like [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], should be an easy pass for WP:ORG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Puzzled by this, company clearly sails past WP:ORG by a million miles. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS the article's overlinked to death and is a mess, but the sourcing is clearly there to do better. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the overlinking is a problem but deletion is not needed to fix it. As mentioned above the sourcing exists to do better. versacespaceleave a message! 11:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, although in addition to the overlinking issue, there is a WP:REFBOMB issue as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I meant WP:REFBOMB. Arse/elbow issues today... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The refbombing is at ridiculous levels, and there's little or no encyclopaedic content, really. But the biggest problem is that when you actually look at the sources, many of them are just product reviews, others are passing mentions of awards etc. (some in primary sources), there are two Forbes 'sites' pieces and a couple of interviews, one is about wallboxes in a generic sense, the Spanish Business Insider article is identical to the English Newsmotor one (hence one is a translation of the other, or both come from some common source), and so on. And none are in what you might call 'solidly RS' publications — trade mags are notorious for accepting press releases and similar content in exchange for the company buying ad space. Once you separate the wheat from the chaff, you may be left with just about enough to establish notability, but I think it's far from clear-cut. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per above meets GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India Herald[edit]

India Herald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No significant coverage available Tulkijasi (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not every website is notable, and this ain't no newspaper. Notability of Indian Heralds? The Deccan Herald, natch. I'll even give you O Heraldo. But not this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: None of the sources cited are reliable and independent of the subject. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – my searches aren't finding any sigcov either. I'm glad to change my !vote if there's something I'm missing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newspaper created upon the splitting of the state. No sigcov. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The page is not having independent news. Sonofstar (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidika senjaliya[edit]

Vaidika senjaliya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR no major roles done Tulkijasi (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:Going through the article, it seems that it is written for promotional purpose. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG, the only sources are social media, and even according to the article she has not had a lead role in any notable productions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet WP:NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Written like an advertisement. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 06:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muse Group[edit]

Muse Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable company, sources cited are the company's own (there is one, from Scoring Notes, that looks secondary but is based on their press release) and a search finds nothing better. There doesn't even seem to be much to say about the company, as the contents are mostly about their products. (There is also some likely COI editing involved.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No reliable indepth coverage available. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hard one, TBH. Audacity is very much a thing and Muse appear to have goofed up quickly with the user community. There's little out there beyond the acquisition news and the company could be relegated to a few lines in the Audacity article at this time. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Many sources cited are mentions, primary or about their products. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, I think it was a bit soon for the company to get its own article considering it's very new and therefore doesn't have much notability or sourcing (outside of the company itself). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 06:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cormack[edit]

Ben Cormack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in November 2017. Despite a keep result of the previous AfD, notability is still not established, there are still no reliable sources in the article, and I found none via G-searches. Baffle☿gab 05:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources presented in article, none immediately found online. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Search brings up other wikis or book seller sites. Actual book The Story of Egmo is also not properly referenced and nothing showing on searches to show gng or sng, so should also be afd. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The first vote at the other AfD, by Dysklyver – now locked across Wikimedia for sockpuppetry – insists they performed WP:BEFORE but never provided any evidence. The other votes at the AfD basically amounted to: "Well, I couldn't find any sources that show he's notable, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here." While giving an article a second chance in good faith is fine, there's no sign that notability has since been established, will be established, or can be established. Beemer69 who voted Weak keep in the previous AfD seems to have put the most work into determining the notability of the subject and cleaning up the article, so I'll ping her for her thoughts on the matter. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The article The Story of Egmo reeks of undisclosed paid promotion and should either be nominated for deletion if it's found not to be notable or drastically reformed to make it not a blatant advert. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources presented in article, as per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Being bold and closing this one early per WP:SNOW Missvain (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martynas Mažvydas School[edit]

Martynas Mažvydas School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication this primary school satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no reliable search results available to qualify this school for WP:NSCHOOL. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. This school is not even notable in Lithuania. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 'not even'! Per nom. Tried searching Lithuanian sources - Mažvydas was the first Lithuanian authour, apparently and there appears to be a claim the school was the first to open post-independence, but that's not enough. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Nothing notable about the school. Kolma8 (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CSD A7 is the better option. Sonofstar (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete References about this, usable for notability or otherwise, are essentially non-existent. So I don't see the AfD resulting in keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close per SKCRIT#1 as an invalid AfD nomination. Nominator has not advanced a valid rationale for deletion or related action such as redirection. If someone is repeatedly blanking and redirecting an article against consensus, there are other venues to address such issues. (non-admin closure) firefly ( t · c ) 09:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Seonjeong[edit]

Queen Seonjeong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Strong keep: (nominator) She was the chief queen consort of Goryeo Dynasty of Korea. According to Korean absolute monarchy system, the queen is the second highest-rank after the King. The queens were highest-ranking member at the Royal Court (Goryeo's political system was absolute monarchy, higher than today's parliament system, so not to be compared). Very clearly passes WP:NPOL. According to the WP:POLOUTCOMES for Monarchs and nobility, There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority. The person has received considerable historical coverage from the reliable source National Institute of Korean History. Moreover, she is a major historical figure of nowadays Korea. Biography of her is prescribed to the school by the Education in the Korean history subject as a biographical profile. I know that the articles missing some information. The article need expansion not deletion. IMO, there is no notability problem.

However, there is a dispute that the person is notable for a separate article, or whether the name should be a redirect to the King. I've disputed the change (blank-and-redirect) and an attempt was made to reach a consensus by discussing in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9#Korean queen. My point is the article is notable for an article and should not redirect to Sinjong of Goryeo. But another user favours blank-and-redirect and has no intention of starting an AfD discussion. DR volunteer suggests the best way to resolve this dispute, when the redirect is being used as a back-door deletion, does appear to be a Article for Deletion discussion. VocalIndia (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• First, i'm so sorry if there's many wrong and missing info or the others in the articles Queen Seonjeong, but if someone knows about Wiki article rules, may you teach me about that??...so, maybe in my next articles will not out from the rules....btw, i'm really happy because i can get a chance to make Korean royal articles and some of them had been reviewed......thanks you so much for this and for Queen Seonjeong, you can free to delete that article if you feels that's not accordance with the rules. Once more, thx so much and sorry for all of my mistakes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningsih ODINN (talk • contribs)

• You misunderstood me. See your talk page. VocalIndia (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• procedural close without decision . This looks like an abuse of process. AfD is not where one argue about a content dispute, the article talk page is. – robertsky (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to learn what is a back-door deletion? We need to discussion for her notability. VocalIndia (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• VocalIndia, eh. the process typically goes from redirection -> reversion -> discussion on talk page per WP:BRD. You skipped the D in the process. A redirection is not a backdoor deletion. It is typically done if one feels that the subject is not notable on its own yet but there is still a possibility to exist on its own. As you have demonstrated, you have reverted Onel5969's redirection. I suggest that you take a step back, cool yourself down, withdraw this, and discuss this civilly on the article's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already started the discussion at Talk:Gwi-in Park and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9#Korean queen. I'm very tired now. VocalIndia (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• VocalIndia, Right. How's those different from this? Why didn't you put this on the article page's talk page as well? and no notifications to the reviewing editor? And don't say that he should be able to see them, and the discussions you have started. Editors can remove the pages from their Watchlist, but cannot avoid notifications. You are tired now? Sure. Take a break. Have a fresh perspective on how to engage others over this and come back later. – robertsky (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Again... I putted at Talk:Kim Mun-geun and more. I can't put my explanation to every articles he redirected because I has two arms. I started this discussion for an example for the future. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • VocalIndia, there is his talk page, and as you have used, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility where you can centralise the discussion. the discussion can be a bundled one affecting many articles at once. – robertsky (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. As a Chief Queen or Empress (왕후) and Queen Mother, she would doubtlessly be notable to be kept. Of course, the article is still needing additional reliable citations though. (Actually, almost all Korean queens have had considerable power; such queens have sometimes been referred as the "power behind the throne". Unlike other queens from other parts of the world, queens of Korea had played major roles in the political affairs and cases of succession to the throne.) Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The main argument for notability has been made well by several other users, but just to reiterate: this woman was the queen consort of the ruler of a major historical kingdom. From an East Asian history perspective, she is undoubtedly notable enough for her own article. Topics that are poorly researched by English language studies often lack the number of sources or quantity of information that other pages have, but this is the result of academic bias and the language proficiencies of Wikipedia's users. It does not, therefore, represent a viable basis to question notability, instead (as has been suggested) tagging articles with requests to improve citations, expand the page with text from the non-English article etc, would be more productive. With this in mind, I have now added further reliable citations. Amys eye (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 06:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Reacts[edit]

Flight Reacts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Flight Reacts

YouTuber who does not satisfy general notability or biographical notability. Naïve Google search shows that he is a much-followed YouTuber; we knew that. Much of the article is non-encyclopedic and non-neutral and is written from a fan viewpoint. Trimming all of the fancruft out might not leave much.

Submitted as a draft to AFC, then declined, then copied into article space (and so cannot be moved back into draft space).

The references appear twice, in different orders. This analysis is of the second list. The references are either YouTube, or passing mentions by Steph Curry of the subject, or unresolvable.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Article appears multiply problematic but YouTuber with no SIGCOV fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. no reliable coverage available. TheChronium 11:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sources fail to demonstrate notability. Pbrks (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I struggle to understand your viewpoint, all of the articles has been confirmed by Flight Reacts himself in a 40 minute video explaining his life experiences and is a complete replica of his own personal viewpoint on his life constructed into an articulate biography. There is no subjective bias this is exactly how he has explained his career. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexith8670 (talk • contribs) 12:25 7 June (UTC)

• Delete: fails all notability guidelines. Kaspadoo (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now I actually created the first Wikipedia article for FlightReacts here over a year ago in April of 2020 and it was deleted in this AFD. It looks like somebody tried to recreate the article there again in November and it got deleted too. I think he's probably on the cusp of notability, considering his somewhat popular music (several songs with millions of views and streams on Youtube, Spotify, Apple Music, and Soundcloud) and he has some independent coverage [12] [13]. But I don't think he merits an article yet. He may in the future, but there probably shouldn't be one now per WP:BALL. Ericfood (talk | contribs) 21:23 7 June (UTC)

• Ericfood With all due respect isn't your point completely subjective? He doesn't have to have a page that is extremely informed as of now, but on the basis, he has nearly ten million followers on Youtube alone and has made a 40-minute video on his early and personal life which was referenced. How is this page any less informed than other content creators such as Ricegum and Adin Ross for instance? He 100 percent merits an article, he's extremely popular and has explained his come-up in great depth. I don't understand you're objection. Provided the information is objective and also informed on someone notable, what is the problem? Mexith8670 (talk • contribs) 12:25 7 June (UTC)
  • I based my decision on Wikipedia's policies. I understand that for a newer contributor such as yourself it might seem like Flight should obviously have an article. I was in the same place a year ago when I created the first iteration of his article. However Flight doesn't really meet the notability guidelines for WP:BLP because there isn't a lot of reliable coverage on him from secondary sources. I'd say that's the biggest obstacle in proving his notability. I know he has high numbers on his YouTube channel, but subscriber numbers are subject to change and not proof of notability. If you can find significant coverage from mostly secondary sources you could prove his notability. I'd recommend reading this essay on YouTube notability. Regarding your point on other YouTubers like Adin Ross and RiceGum, there are lots of YouTubers whose articles are regularly deleted in AfDs. To be honest I don't think Adin Ross meets the notability guidelines either, RiceGum has probably had enough independent coverage to merit an article though. This isn't to say I agree with the Wikipedia policies, I think they're a little too strict on the notability guidelines for popular YouTubers, but we have to follow the guidelines. Ericfood (talk | contribs) 06:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that User:82.8.90.24 has removed the deletion template from the article twice. CodeTalker (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is almost 100% user Junefith. Same article edit history etc. It also raises questions over Mexith8670 who has edited exclusively the same articles and have made the same removals, per WP:DUCK.Koncorde (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Narcissistic personality disorder. Very selectively. Consensus is that it is preferable to cover this topic, if at all, as part of the article about the disorder. Sandstein 05:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissistic abuse[edit]

Narcissistic abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is not only lacking sources and citations, it is clearly sympathetic of abusers. It is incorrect, uninformed, and offensive. Idmidiom (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 04:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Nominations should not be made as proxies for new editors as the proper process of WP:BEFORE is not done and valid reasons for deletion are not stated, so that there is no case to answer. This faux nomination is especially vexatious as the topic has already been at AfD before, when the result was Keep. The topic is also highly notable as there are numerous books written specifically about it – see links above. What the topic clearly needs is some competent and expert editing per WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT. Perhaps Casliber can spare us a moment... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I'm not going to argue the merit of the nomination--I've processed quite a number of these on behalf of anonymous IPs and newer editors, and while they have (to put it charitably) varied widely in terms of merit, that does not in any way mean that they have not been made in good faith. This one was a bit borderline by even my generous standards, but I see no reason to be apologetic about it. As for the previous "keep" verdict: That was a decade ago, and standards have evolved considerably since then. If that discussion had occurred, say, last year, it might very well have tipped the balance in the other direction. --Finngall ^talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Per Andrew as there are numerous books written specifically about it. It should easily pass WP:BASIC. TheChronium 11:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - based on Andrew Davidson's argument above. The subject of the article is clearly notable, per its current sourcing/citations as well as a multitude of other available references online that could be added to the article to further improve it. Deletion discussions are not a forum for deleting the things one might personally disagree with, however it seems that the nomination is based on that criteria rather than WP's guidelines and policies for notability. Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant material to Narcissistic personality disorder, Domestic violence or any other abuse pages. Article reads like an essay bordering on original research between NPD and DV and other types of abuse. Looking at google scholar, there are a handful of primary sources (articles and books) and zero secondary sources. The issue is a very serious one. Abuse is abuse whether perpetrated by someone with NPD, BPD or ASPD, or something else, and having a subpage like this I feel detracts from the quality of a more coherent stronger parent article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ugh. This is a terrible article about a terrible pop-psych concept. Nonetheless, many terrible pop-psych concepts get articles one way or another, and this is definitely a popular enough one to describe somewhere. The article is in such poor shape that I might recommend WP:TNT deletion, considering my prior comments on pop-psych information making its way to Wikipedia. I worry this may be a topic on which a policy-compliant article would be near-impossible to write, considering the gap between what coverage exists and what sources would be necessary to write an article that isn't a horrible ableist clusterfuck. I might be inclined, if I have to, to suggest a very selective merge -- somewhere along the lines of a single sentence -- to e.g. the main NPD article that explains that 'narcissistic abuse' is a currently popular way of conceptualizing certain forms of abusive relationships. Vaticidalprophet 01:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further thought and specification: considering stigma and due weight, merging this to NPD is probably a bad idea, rather than merging it ("it" again defined as "like, a sentence") to an abuse-related article. Vaticidalprophet 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• While I'm in agreement with Andrew Davidson that it's not generally helpful to proxy-nominate articles for deletion, this is a case where I think the concerns with the article greatly outweigh the bureaucracy of who nominated it. I am in agreement with Casliber that this topic is not really independently notable of all of the other forms of abuse and narcissism itself - and any salvageable content (which I see little of) can be merged to those articles. Casliber's last sentence puts it well. Also going to second Vaticidal - merge any useful content then TNT this article, without prejudice against recreating in the future in a much better state (if possible - which I agree with Vatidical may not be the case). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do NOT delete! People need to understand this disorder especially if they are living with someone with this! Critical to have access to information a definition & further resources to learn how to deal with this person & safe steps to take. As well as how to heal from the abuse cycle. This is what saved me after ... understanding and access to information on healing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.140.46.186 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC) — 32.140.46.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge relevant material to Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury. While abuse dynamics as described popularly under the heading of narcissistic abuse certainly happen, it's rarely connected with recognized and diagnosed NPD, and the description of the phenomenon belongs under narcissistic rage rather than the NPD article. It serves neither survivors nor people with NPD to have this mess of an unsourced article floating around. 12.227.254.2 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but no merge, at least right now. This seems to be a notable and well covered subject as appears from articles retrieved by Google scholar [14] and from sourcing on the page. In addition, it might be merged with another page on a closely related topic. But I think that would be better addressed by starting a separate discussion on merging. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We should be embarrassed to have this "article" on Wikipedia. It is a hodgepodge of random ramblings devoid of any cohesive meaning. The phrase "narcissistic abuse" does not appear in the title of any articles in prominent journals and in only two obscure books. Do narcissistic adults often cause harm to children and others? Yes, of course. But that topic is best addressed within articles such as Child abuse, Psychological abuse, Domestic violence, Narcissistic personality disorder, etc. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Markworthen--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge very selectively to Narcissistic personality disorder (taking extreme care to leave the OR and meandering synthesis behind), and then delete what remains. firefly ( t · c ) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Markworthen, and the spirit of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As a page based primarily on a lexical premise ("hypernym"), I am unable - in general - to see compelling reasons for merger/s. 86.186.168.216 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Given the topic is related to medicine, and WP:MEDRS, it would be good to weight the arguments above through the prism of the expertise of the person giving them. For the record, I don't have background in medicine sufficien to think my opinion about this topic has much merit, although through the prism of expert Wikipedian and scholar in other fields I'll note that Google Scholar does have some hits for this term. But whether they are reliable or quacky I am not sure. Not a single journal article I see in GSCholar appears to be widely cited, or comes from a journal a relative outsider like me would recognize (Lancet, etc.). My current view is that the topic is very WP:FRINGE in the current medical studies, and/or is a fork of what is better known as the narcissistic personality disorder (a term that is much more widely used in scholarly literature), but I am not going to put my head on the block for this claim. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more or less a pop-psych concept. Personally, I think it gross ableism. It's a fairly popular pop-psych concept regardless of my thoughts, and I'm unsurprised we have an article for it, but we probably shouldn't, and there's a reasonable question about whether we should be hosting such material at all. I do think if we don't have mention of it somewhere then good(?)-faith contributors will keep trying to mention it, but maybe we should just delete outright and revert as they go. Vaticidalprophet 01:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 06:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharjah Wanderers[edit]

Sharjah Wanderers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:Before check shows that the article does not meet WP:ORG and lacks WP:ORGDEPTH. Possibly a WP:ADPROMO. nirmal (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How very ironic. The article was created by me, it's not a promo and is as sourced as its going to get, given that it's a small members only club important to the British and sporting communities of the Emirate of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates. However, I do note it comfortably passes WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above seems to have enough sources available to pass notability. Okaye Agongo (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to meet GNG. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources examined meet GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It meets notability. Suggest the noms to demonstrate his point. Sonofstar (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 06:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Garner, Kentucky[edit]

Little Garner, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

GNIS is sourced to Rennick, whose Boyd County directory has Garner, Boyd County, Kentucky and mentions Garner Creek (Kentucky), but does not have "Little Garner". Kentucky Geographic Names has Little Garner Creek, but no community of Little Garner. Searching brings up Little Garner Road in Ashland, some nicknames for people, a place in North Carolina, somebody dumping moonshine in Little Garner Creek, and two passing mentions to somebody being "of" Little Garner. I don't think there's enough written about this place to demonstrate notability. Hog Farm _Talk 05:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The existence of Garner Creek in a different place does make this difficult. The creeks here are specifically Little Garner and Big Garner, and I cannot find any source saying anything other than creeks, including the 1991 Omni Gazetteer of the United States of America. The actual local communities mentioned in what I turn up are Ashland, Kentucky and Westwood, Boyd County, Kentucky. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Little Garner" as a location isn't on any USGS maps until 2010, when it inexplicably shows up there. Google Maps does show that there are quite a few houses there, but Little Garner itself isn't marked on the map; every address in the vicinity is marked as Ashland or just Boyd County. There's a Little Garner Creek there, and a Little Garner Road that travels along it (merges with Kentucky Route 716 at Summit Road; actually really confusing since current maps list northbound Summit as Route 716, yet topographic maps claim it's the entirety of Little Garner Road), but again, nothing else showing it actually exists. AdoTang (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 06:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peterman Hill[edit]

Peterman Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No GNIS entry, which is always a bad sign for USA places. Newspapers.com brought up a shooting and a murder happening here, as well as two moonshine raids "on Peterman['s] Hill". Searching in other places mainly brought up mirrors and clickbait. This may simply be an informal name for a collection of houses on the hill; no sign of significant coverage that I could find. Hog Farm _Talk 05:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a name for a hill that has never been formalized, from what I can see. The correct name of the ridge is "Laurel Ridge", Geographic Names Information System, United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior. There's no Peterman Hill on any map that I can find. Just one map has a Peterman Marsh Run Road instead of Cannonsburg Road. The river that the road tracks is always Marsh Run, no Peterman, however. There is a Peterman Hill in a 1927 report of a contract awarded to macadamize a road "from top of Peterman Hill to Cannonsburg Crossing", that does not say where this hill is, not even what direction from Cannonsburg it is, or that it is the road discussed here, or that it ever happened.

  Nothing in this article is right. It's a hill, not a community. The link from it to the 1890s-named "Cannonsburg-Catlettsburg Turnpike" is unverifiable. Ironically, the Midland Trail through Kentucky is notable, but it is not this road as claimed. The 1952 Historic Kentucky Highways gives that name to U.S. Route 62 in Kentucky, and later sources (such as Winchester Sun columnist's Harry G. Enoch's 2018 Where In The World?, which has a 1926 map showing this and an explanation of the political fight about it in the 1920s that is sourced to doi:10.1353/khs.2015.0031) state that it is actually U.S. Route 60 in Kentucky and connects to Ashland, which this road does not. This isn't even Cannonsburg's own Midland Trail Road. This road is apparently the one authorized in 1930 (by an Act of the Kentucky General Assembly) to go from the Midland Trail to Catlettsburg. It's in Wikipedia at List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (3000–3499)#KY 3294. The Act makes no mention of a Peterman, either.

  This article does not seem to be verifiably true.

  Uncle G (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on the analysis per User:HighKing. Nothing has convinced me this subject meets WP:GNG based on the sourcing. Missvain (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special Strong[edit]

Special Strong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable fails GNG Urartuvanking (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Urartuvanking (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep Decent amount of coverage available in reliable websites like [15][16][17][18][19] etc. Deftwapt (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG as per indepth coverage in reputable sources. Namkongville (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertisement of a Fitness company. References do not show notability of the subject. Routine coverage and PR. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has significant coverage and meets WP:ORG .Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above, passes WP:ORG has indepth coverage in many sources. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertorials masquerading as news. Not a single reference comes close to meeting the requirements for establishing notability of this *company*. Most of the articles focus on the founder and only mention the company in passing. Maybe the founder is notable, but the company does not meet NCORP requirements.
  • Forbes blog post fails WP:RS
  • Dallas News profile of a guy called Robert working out with the founder and is a discussion on the benefits of exercise for special needs. Very little info on the company and all of it provided by the founder, fails WP:ORGIND
  • Graced Health blog, fails WP:RS
  • Mindbody Online profile of the founder, all info on the company provided by the founder, fails ORGIND
  • Autism Sprectrum New written by the founder, fails as a Primary source
  • Video1, Video2 and Video3 are all commenting on the same "viral" video filmed by the founder, fails CORPDEPTH (no info about the company) and ORGIND (material produced by the founder, no Independent Content)
  • Fort Worth Business is an advertorial for the company, all info provided by the founder, no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
  • Reframing Ministries is a blog, fails WP:RS

I haven't managed to locate a single reference that meets the criteria, topic fails NNCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I agree with some of your assessment by HighKing,  Fort Worth Business is a reliable publication and has in-depth coverage on them. There is no indication anywhere that this is an advertorial. CityLiefeStyle, not mentioned by HighKing, has in-depth coverage on them. In addition, they have been featured on several major media and TV (ABC, NBC, FOX), although not in-depth, just the fact that they have so much coverage, helps with the overall notability. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response "reliable source" and "in-depth coverage" is two out of three - people always tend to try to ignore WP:ORGIND and the fact that all the information is provided by the company (in a glowingly positive way, hence the term "advertorial"). Same as the CityLifeStyle article originally published in McKinney & Prosper - once you see it in the original magazine, you'll see it as an advertorial also. The entire magazine is one big bunch of ads. You need to examine very closely those times when the CEO is being interviewed or there are mentions of the company and ask - who is providing the information. To pass ORGIND, it can't originate from the company/CEO/founder/executive and be published - the reference requires independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of those links provide that. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CityLifeStyle and McKinney & Prosper publications are from the same company. Deftwapt (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has a good amount of reliable coverage overall, should be enough to pass the notability bar. Jaysonsands (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above seems to have enough sources available to pass notability. Okaye Agongo (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So far, nobody appears to be engaging in a discussion about the sourcing and references. Reasons such as "good amount of reliable coverage" and "enough sources available" without providing links makes it difficult to understand the precise reasons for the !vote and, to my mind at least, shows some !voters don't really seem to be bothering to look. This isn't a count of !votes, it is meant to be a discussion. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The combined sources and TV news coverage seems enough to make this organization qualify for WP:ORG because as per WP:ORG, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. And here Special Strong clearly qualifies this criterion by getting coverage on reputed websites and getting featured on major TV channels like ABC, NBC, Fox News, Channel 24, News 24 and many others for their notable works like making Brandon Neal walked again in over 8 years which was a notable moment itself in medical mystery and got highlighted in almost all major world news channels for the same. So, Overall when both website and TV coverage combined, it is more than enough to make this brand qualify for WP:ORG. Deftwapt (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deftwapt, thanks for clarifying but your interpretation of WP:NCORP is simply wrong. You don't get to consider all references at once, each reference is examined individually. Each reference should pass all of the requirements of NCORP and as I've shown above, not a single reference when considered in isolation (as is proper) meets the criteria for establishing notability. If you disagree, either point me to where my interpretation of NCORP is off or point to a single reference that meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you on some. But receiving coverage in multiple sources either some of them are not full-featured posts but having 3-4 para which talks in-depth about the subject and having multiple news coverage which is independent and reliable should make it qualify. Deftwapt (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that simply isn't the way WP:NCORP works. It's designed specifically to make it more difficult for organizations that rely entirely on spammy promotional references like the ones here to use this platform for even more promotion. Oh ... and when your use the word "independent", you're using it in the context of "corporate independedce", that is, the publisher has no corporate relationship with the topic organization. That is not the complete nor correct definition and I'm going by the "Independent Content" definition in WP:ORGIND which says the content must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I invite you once more to provide a link to any single reference that meets the criteria. Just one. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:ORG as per available overall coverage. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per HighKing.-KH-1 (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete creation of SPA, remarkable WP page creation skills for a brand new account. Sourcing does not pass WP:ORG, overlinked mess. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a new user and was earlier used to edits through IP before. I have a basic knowledge of Wikipedia. Deftwapt (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As per having coverage in multiple sources and major news TV channels this article should qualify for WP:ORG. I think this company has been the subject of enough independent and reliable sources like The Dallas Morning News, GoodNewsNetwork, ABC, NBC, Fox News, Channel 24 and many others which can surely warrant notability, please see the source table below for the same. Deftwapt (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Deftwapt
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Dallas News		The source is a major news website	The source discusses all details what this organization does	✔ Yes
Forbes	~	The source is a major news website	The source discusses all details what this organization does	~ Partial
Good News Network		This source is reliable	The source discusses all details what this organization does	✔ Yes
Yahoo News		The source is a major news website	~ The article mentions the organization works	~ Partial
Moms		The source is reliable	~ The article mentions the organization works	~ Partial
Dallas Doing Good		The source is reliable	The source discusses all details what this organizationdoes	✔ Yes
Graced Health			The source discusses all details what this organization does	✘ No
Reframing Ministries		This publication is a major website	The source discusses all details what this organization does	✔ Yes
Autism Speaks			The source discusses all details what this organization does	✘ No
ABC News		This is a well known major TV channel	The source mentions the organization works	✘ No
Channel 24		This is a well known major TV channel	The source mentions the organization works	✘ No
NBC		This is a well known major TV channel	The source mentions the organization works	✘ No
McKinney & Prosper		This is a well known news website	The source discusses all details what this organization does	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).