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

The result was delete. If anyone would like the article userfied, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geldards Coaches[edit]

Geldards Coaches (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:NCORP. Everything I found in searches relates to a depot fire and subsequent administration and closure of the business which is trivial/routine per NCORP. There is a decent Buses article but multiple sources are needed. Found nothing in book searches either. SK2242 (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Nearly impossible to find additional sources during lockdown so there's no hurry here and the fact there's one mean's there's likely others.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can put this into your userspace and find sources when you can. We don’t assume sources exist when there is no proof of them existing. SK2242 (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Articles regarding a fire at a depot of the company are enough to confer notability, as they aren't simple routine corporate events. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on the notability of the company generally, but it can't be the case that reporting of a fire at a business confers notability on that business, no matter how lacking it was in notability absent the fire. BD2412 T 03:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subject does not appear to meet WP:NCORP and the keep arguments made thus far are rather unpersuasive. No objection to this being userfied if someone wants to commit to looking for sources when COVID restrictions are relaxed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there has been no evidence presented thus far that this company passes WP:NCORP, which is the guideline that it absolutely must pass. The depot fire coverage does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing found in Google searches and nothing found in a search of British newspaper archives, which includes many local West Yorkshire papers. By all means, someone can work on this in their user space but I see no reason for this article to sit in main space on the small off-chance that there might happen to be some significant coverage offline somewhere. If coverage is found later on, then restore it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• LOL I cant believe this made it so long in the discussion. This is a defunct bus company known for nothing other than a fire? Seriously. Delete. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stagecoach South East. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastonways[edit]

Eastonways (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:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Arguably independently notable though I'd need to get past end of lockdown ... worst case this could be assimilated into a merged article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given the company was liquidated in 2013, the article may be kept for archiving historical facts. Chiro725 (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiro725: That doesn’t establish notability? See WP:NCORP SK2242 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Stagecoach South East: Searching does not yield sources that can satisafy WP:NCORP. Most results on the front are wp:unreliable. Redirection per WP:ATD-R. Merging does not seem like a good option since the only statement that should be merged (In October 2013, the company was placed in liquidation and most routes were taken over by Stagecoach in East Kent on behalf of Kent County Council.) has a dead source without an archive, making it not wp:verifiable. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I suggest to delete or merge into a new page a bus lover can create that is UK's defunct bus companies. As a group they might be notable. Standalone they clearly fail NCORP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Harrhy[edit]

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

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

Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Kemalcan (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non Notable Football player. Fails GNG & Bio. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,Fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - badly fails WP:GNG; not a shred of notability found Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 09:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to MX Player#Mx Takatak. (Policy-based arguments are given for redirection and there is a consensus in favor of this outcome; notice that relisting does not have to be done for the full seven days per WP:RELIST). (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mx Takatak[edit]

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

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

Not Passing GNG, sources are unreliable or routine coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep The article currently lists extraordinarily significant sources from The Economic Times. There are so many hits on Google news. This seems to be a frivolous nomination much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moj (app) Mottezen (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Analysing the references one by one. The first reference is an Apple Store link that can't be counted as a source. The second is a google playstore link.[1] Entrackr doesn't seem to be a very reliable source. Seems very niche with most of its news about funding etc (likely to be rewritten from various press releases without fact checks. I might be wrong though but quick browsing of their website does give this perception). [2] The Economic Times link doesn't seem to be independent. There is no byline. The way it is written, no journalist would write that way. [3] Another ET link which doesn't seem very independent and likely to be influenced. Besides, it is funding related news that doesn't help much to contribute notability. And last [4] is an Indian television website link. Seems obviously promotional. Doesn't qualify GNG and NCORP. I fail to understand why would an experienced editor would vote a strong keep at this junk of sources! Sonofstar (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clear to me you don't understand WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Mottezen (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to MX Player. Would've suggested merge but the content on the parent company page is identical. -KH-1 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to MX Player per WP:PRODUCT.---Pontificalibus 13:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to MX Player per WP:PRODUCT appears a valid option, otherwise Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incap[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is WP:ROUTINE for an electronics manufacturing company. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• I have updated the article with some additional information and sources (at least some of which I would hope categorize as being significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject) and would argue against deletion on the basis that it is a relatively noteworthy company, operating in several countries, having received several awards and recognitions in the recent years, and despite the current difficult economical climate, has been growing steadily. Being listed on the Nasdaq Helsinki does not mean it is inherently notable, but I don't see it as less notable than several other companies listed there that do have articles, such as Basware, Biohit, Citycon, Raisio Group or Tecnotree. PrunedSamurai (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • PrunedSamurai, just be aware that the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP - take particular note of WP:ORGIND. With listed companies, the easiest/quickest way to establish notability is to point to coverage of the company by analysts - I don't mean "Buy/Sell" ratings but where analysts have published research on the company itself or perhaps they've analysed the market in which they operate and included information on the companies (including this one) that compete in that market? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject to somebody coming across some analyst reports (which I'm unable to find), I might yet be persuaded to change my mind but until then, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per HighKing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Fotakopoulos[edit]

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

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

Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also Fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient coverage and links supporting this topic. Perry Fotakopoulos has played in professionally listed FIFA tournaments, along with national division in his country. He meets the guidelines, he could also be listed or have this topic merged into a 'notable' topic. MichaelKondor (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)MichaelKondor[reply]

• Unfortunately its not the case in my opinion. There is a lack of significant coverage. Furthermore the article also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The subject has not represented his country at senior level or at the Olympic Games. Nor has he made any senior appearances in a fully professional league. Simione001 (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable footballerRondolinda (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can this topic be made as a notable figure as opposed to footballer? A lot of effort and times goes into each and every topic as you would all understand. This topic was visible and ok for a long time, and does have a number of sufficient write ups and articles included. I think its fair to leave, if it can also be made as a notable figure instead of football if it does not meet guidelines. MichaelKondor (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)MichaelKondor[reply]

• Delete - subject fails WP:GNG; see below for my analysis of the sources provided. Name checks and youth match squad listings do not add up to significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://www.stgeorgefootball.com.au/news/2021/3/2/npl-2-nsw-mens-2021-season-preview			Mentioned once in passing	✘ No
https://the-riotact.com/capital-football-round-3-review/125076			Mentioned in squad list only	✘ No
https://footballnsw.com.au/2014/03/14/fnsw-institute-players-dominate-ais-squad/			Again, just a squad list	✘ No
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/south-west/canterbury-footballer-perry-fotakopoulos-aiming-for-the-fifa-world-cup-with-under17s-joeys/news-story/468b78a8ed980f37dba33349629e87ee			~ This article is extremely brief but it is more than just a name check. Still, little depth beyond just the one quote from him.	~ Partial
https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/joeys-name-squad-for-the-fifa-u-17-world-cup			Squad list	✘ No
https://www.socceroos.com.au/news/paul-okon-names-young-socceroos-squad-international-friendly-matches			Squad list	✘ No
https://www.wswanderersfc.com.au/news/six-wanderers-selected-young-socceroos			Squad list on club website	✘ No
https://websites.sportstg.com/team_info.cgi?action=PSTATS&pID=201268274&client=1-10179-170778-399131-24904262			Database page	✘ No
https://www.wswanderersfc.com.au/news/npl-preview-wanderers-vs-northern-tigers-0			Not independent or significant	✘ No
http://stgeorgecity.com.au/2020/03/04/npl-2-nsw-mens-2020-season-preview/			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://footballnsw.com.au/2021/02/26/npl-2-nsw-mens-2021-season-preview/			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.aseanfootball.org/v3/aff-u16-final-malaysia-lift-first-ever-crown/			Name check	✘ No
https://www.socceroos.com.au/news/aussie-starlets-face-ac-and-inter-milan			Squad list for training camp	✘ No
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/south-west/canterbury-footballer-perry-fotakopoulos-joins-australian-joeys-for-asean-football-federation-under16-aya-bank-championship-in-myanmar/news-story/1295485bffd4d9eca94bc8d2bcdcb4cd			Routine announcement, no depth, nothing to build a biography from	✘ No
https://www.matildas.com.au/news/joeys-notch-seven-opening-fixture			Trivial mention	✘ No
https://territorystories.nt.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/10070/258528/54/Northern%20Territory%20News_20151003_page41_NTNews_Sport_41.PDF	?	?	? I couldn't access this	? Unknown
https://www.socceroos.com.au/news/joeys-squad-named-2015-u-17-fifa-world-cup-chile			U17 squad list	✘ No
https://muchfeed.com/perry-fotakopoulos/	?	Unreliable source. Database scraper		✘ No
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/south-west/canterbury-footballer-perry-fotakopoulos-aiming-for-the-fifa-world-cup-with-under17s-joeys/news-story/468b78a8ed980f37dba33349629e87ee			~ Some coverage but still very brief	~ Partial
https://www.myfootball.com.au/news/excellent-joeys-squad-selected-asian-championship			Squad listing	✘ No
https://www.matildas.com.au/news/joeys-notch-seven-opening-fixture			Passing mention	✘ No
http://fiasports.com/joeys-fly-out-to-face-brazil-england-and-usa/			Squad listing	✘ No
https://www.cornerflag.com.au/young-socceroos-call-up-for-victory-npl-pair-deng-derrick/			Squad listing	✘ No
https://footballnsw.com.au/2015/04/22/nsw-dominates-young-socceroos-squad/			Passing mention	✘ No
https://www.fifa.com/u17worldcup/news/four-star-germany-east-past-aussies-2718593			Match report with passing mention	✘ No
https://www.myfootball.com.au/news/joeys-squad-named-2015-u-17-fifa-world-cup-chile			Squad listing	✘ No
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal-junior-sports-stars-awards-tonight-recognise-best-young-athletes-in-greater-sydney/news-story/a0a8e8cb5b31c55f7fff61989a2ffba4			Name check	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

• Delete: Enough coverage not found to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For future references, in simple terms- what is needed to be sufficient enough to pass as notability guidelines? MichaelKondor (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)MichaelKondor[reply]

• Delete, Fails WP:FOOTBALL and WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 09:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Away (company). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Korey[edit]

Steph Korey (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 started out as puffery but has now become an attack article -- the best course will be to remove it entirely as not yet notable in a positive sense nor even sufficiently notorious in a negative sense . DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references were always atrocious and weren't sufficiently in-depth nor independent to support a BLP. We will see if the same SPA's turn up this time. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The borderline notability combined with the article either being a puff piece or a hit piece leads me to believe that no article at all is a better option. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks indepth and independent sources, fails WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Away (company). The controversy over her social media activity, and repeated stepping-down and returning to CEO, have been covered by The Verge, The New York Times, Forbes, Business Insider, Vox, and Jezebel. However, the large number of NPOV and BLP issues in the article's history suggest that information may be better contained to the business article, not the person. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Away (company). Was kind of on the fence between a weak keep and redirect. I think the sources are reliable and significant but the tone is all over the place. Seems more appropriate as part of the Away page.Miaminsurance (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Creator requested G7 StarM 21:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Tozzi[edit]

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

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

Very minor Italian TV sports "personality". Passing coverage from tabloids revolves around what clothing she wears on the show. PK650 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unable to find significant independent coverage of her work. StarM 23:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with both of the above. This fails the WP:BASIC test. I couldn't find even one example of significant coverage in a source that could be considered as a reliable journalistic source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Articles about the attractiveness of, or clothing someone wears, or about what she does on social media, can just as easily confer notability as an article about her journalism, if the work of the source is significant enough (plus the other qualifications for GNG). Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A quick Google search gives what appear to be tabloid articles about her attire, one including bikini photos. I don't see any that would be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hilariously not notable. Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable Devokewater 09:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy-deletion per G7 Dr Salvus 21:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With respect to the sources provided in the weak keep argument, trivial mentions are not considered significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Hallahan[edit]

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

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

most of the sources cited are articles in which her photos were used, not articles about her. there're also few independent publications online. not a very notable photographer, i'm afraid. RZuo (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – as per RZuo, while there are a few sources, most of them don't even mention the subject's name, and just show her photographs. Doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE... subject is not a notable photographer. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep She actually has a decent number of mentions in books and magazines. Here she is outlined in What Matters: The World's Preeminent Photojournalists and Thinkers Depict Essential Issues of Our Time, where her photos are also used. Here she with her creative work cited in Mother Jones as more than a normal photo credit. I would also argue that each time she's credited by name for use of her photography in more than a simple credit it works towards WP:CREATIVE:1. For instance here her photographs are being cited in a history book discussing the changes brought about by the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco. Additionally the sources already in the article do a lot to establish notability, especially this profile discussing her and her photography. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV guidlines to show WP:GNG per nom. Redoryxx (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wan Mohammed Afiq[edit]

Wan Mohammed Afiq (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 never played in a game between two clubs playing in a league listed at WP:FPL, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL. This footballer has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him, therefore failing WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination fails GNG & NFOOTBALL JW 1961 Talk 22:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per all, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom. fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, Alex-h (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above, subject obviously fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 10:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David N. Farr[edit]

David N. Farr (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, one reference is a self-published one that doesn't seem notable anyway and the other three are Amazon links. Searching doesn't yield any notable inclusions. Also fails WP:AUTHOR. FozzieHey (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FozzieHey (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nomination. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per all above, not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Grailcombs (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 10:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zsolt Ábel[edit]

Zsolt Ábel (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 footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL with no professional appearances recorded at MLSZ or HLSZ.

In my search, including one centred on Hungarian sources, I could only find a passing mention in a match report, so I believe that Ábel fails WP:GNG as well. His two names could not be any further away in the alphabet but that's about the only interesting or notable thing about him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – no sources could be found (fails WP:GNG) and also has never played in a league deemed fully professional by WP:FPL so, therefore, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above, subject obviously fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Ábel's team play in the third tier right now, and while they probably played at a higher level when the subject was around, there is little to suggest that he even regularly played for them in any professional games. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 21:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet College Jhang[edit]

Cadet College Jhang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nothing notable about this private military college. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails WP:GNG (no sources on the article and couldn't find any via Google) and WP:NORG Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG, nothing indicates notability of this school. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we need to start requiring these articles to have at least some indepdent sources. We have some that have no sources at all. We really need to start following the standard of verrifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like the school does actually exist, but that's all I could find. Doesn't appear notable. I'm willing to reconsider if someone provides a glut of Pakistani sources or somesuch. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as prev comments. Zawed (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Stricker[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO criteria. Most coverage of this person is trivial snippet press or the routine exec departure/arrival news. Furthermore, the coverage is overwhelingly possitive and written by a single editor. According to xtools, 96.3% of the authorship of this article is done by one editor: AmandaYChen. The editor is a SPA (who almost exclusively edits this one article). The editor never responded to a 2014 question on their talk page asking if they have a COI on the subject.

In summary, this is a low notability article about a C-level executive, written by a single editor, and is cited using poor sources and trivial coverage.Ew3234 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable. many mentions in news stories but no significant articles about him. Miaminsurance (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the above comments. This is not an article that meets Wikipedia notability standards. It should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the Wikipedia community for all this feedback. I am not a very experienced editor, so I am trying to use the comments as best as I can. I have incorporated your feedback by deleting content coming from lower quality sources and by deleting content that suggested any bias. I find this particular executive of interest because of his Planned Parenthood board membership, his board membership on a prominent journalism organisation (Center for Investigative Reporting), as well as his notability as a published author by a reputable publisher (St. Martin's Press). Most recently, the revelation of having been represented by prominent US government official Alejandro Mayorkas in ongoing litigation seems significant. To answer the question raised previously, I do not have a COI and am not a Twitter employee. I apologise for not having answered that sooner. Please do let me know how I can be most helpful here as a member of the community. AmandaYChen (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladeshi IT companies[edit]

List of Bangladeshi IT companies (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 is not a complete or comprehensive list and the number implies some sort of ranking; they do not. As it stands it is a list of non-notable companies that have little chance of becoming notable.

This is a promotional list for the ten non-notable companies. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete this along with the other two similar ones by the same creator. Random list of non-notable companies, practically unsourced, and serves no encyclopaedic value. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTN/WP:NOTDIR. No notable list entries worth making a list article about Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional list. Shrikanthv (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete current article. List of companies of Bangladesh exist already but only list one thing for information technology. Category:Lists of companies of Bangladesh does not list any IT companies. Since nothing on this list is a blue link, no reason to have it now. Dream Focus 16:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a promotional list. This article does not qualify for being an Wikipedia article. It is an unsourced article. It doesn't contain Tables for lists or necessary sections. It is uncategorized. It does not meet the notability for lists or any other categories. User:A.A Prinon

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C N Vijaykrishnan[edit]

C N Vijaykrishnan (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 politician; being party official and election candidate do not satisfy WP:NPOL, and the sources cited do not establish WP:GNG notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per RaviC Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Devokewater 10:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yara International School, Riyadh[edit]

Yara International School, Riyadh (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 school, the references look plentiful but the sources cited are either primary or only passing mentions; therefore fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. This has been deleted before, so may need salting as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it was deleted because I failed to provide references and citations on time. I am still working on the article to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. There have been plenty of similar schools across Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, etc. that have a Wikipedia article and their notability wasn't questioned even though they rarely made any headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist (talk • contribs)

Two things: 1) you should provide references and citations and generally meet the guidelines before publishing, not publish first and then race against time trying to avoid deletion; and 2) WP:other stuff exists is not a valid argument in and of itself. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A page entitled Yara International School (created by the same editor) was deleted at AfD in 2018. A newly-created and unreferenced article under the present title was moved to draft on 13 March 2021, and then the present article was created on 17 March 2021. AllyD (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the article about the school Yara International School, Riyadh is already notable on search engines with numerous websites discussing the school. The school has also got many coverages by the Saudi press as I have provided citations for evidence. The school is apparently famous for having both Indian and British curriculum, making it one of the few schools in Riyadh to make that claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist (talk • contribs)

• Delete somehow looks promotional and lacks any major event to lend to its notability. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• And somehow there are enough citations to prove that the school is too important to ignore. User:Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53#Recordings. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography[edit]

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Transitioning this to AfD following rejection of a speedy deletion request [5]. The rejection of the speedy deletion is only on procedural grounds, as WP:G4 does not apply due to there being significant differences between the deleted version and the now current version. This is something that the person proposing the speedy deletion could not see. I have no comment on whether to keep or delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As original requester; the concerns of the first AfD are still present, this is an unecessary WP:SPLIT by an editor who is trying to bypass multiple RfCs on the article talk page. I see very little information that is not already covered on the main article; and even less information which could not reasonably be covered there. An unecessary WP:CFORK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And to clarify: currently, despite the parent article (BWV 53) standing at about 120 kB in wikitext size, there's only 10 kB of readable prose... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge/redirect – the concerns of the first AfD are no longer present (see here and here, and here). The next bit of the first "delete" !voter's comment is unjustified ad hominem, followed by a reason not to have this at AfD in the first place: even if this would be a content fork (which it isn't) AfD is not the place to sort content forks. See WP:AfD, first bullet in the first big box on that page, after "... consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate" it says:

  For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, ..., or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

  (emphasis added). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Content forks and POV forks (as opposite to simple POV problems) are entirely within the scope of AfD, if the only reasonable solution is to put them back in the main article, and such bold action without a discussion (given that this was just recently deleted for a first time, and the re-creation does not address my concerns that the split is still unjustified; and that the only history to merge is by one single contributor, who could add it to the main article instead) would be reckless... And if it is a duplicate article, then you are right it is not AfD, it's WP:A10. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect: "duplicate article" refers to "content fork"; a "duplicate article" with "POV problems" is a "POV fork". But the problem isn't yours: your comment only illustrated it. The problem is Hammersoft's, who initiated this AfD throwing precaution to the wind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What is your problem however, RandomCanadian, and apparently also Smerus's below, that is that if "content fork" would have been the actual problem, then you'd not steer for "delete", but for turning this into a redirect, as is, or after merging material currently missing from the BWV 53 article. So, I don't see either of you actually believing the "content fork" hypothesis, which per current guidance would lead to a different outcome than the one you propose. Let me give you an example. A very common component of any article on a church cantata is mentioning the composition's performance time. No performance time is currently mentioned in the BWV 53 article. It is currently mentioned in the discography article. That is not a "content fork" of any sort. That is normal WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for the cantata article, with the detail covered in the "see also" discography article. Deleting the information is without merit: it belongs in the cantata article (which is anyhow justified), and/or in the discography article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And now Kusma steers for the same contradiction: if it is a content fork it should be turned into a redirect (with or without first merging content from the current discography article), and not deleted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a content fork you started by ignoring the normal editing process, which is to reach WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page - there are such discussions, and it is rather clear that editors have decided that Wikipedia is not a database listing of recordings; or a place where you can impose you preferred style of citation. Anyway, redirecting would be a valid option if this wasn't already partially copied from the article it's to be merged to, and if you weren't the sole contributor. Additionally, except for a short note about brisker tempi in light of the HIP movement (which I'm not sure if it's on the WP:SYNTH side of things), which you can add there yourself, there's nothing to be merged. Anyway, you've had you chance to give your point, and obviously you're not going to convince me that this is a valid fork, so let's just drop it for now and let others give their unpit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Re. "... the normal editing process, which is to reach WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page ..." – incorrect, a discography article can be started without such prior consensus, as a normal process. That's even policy. It's called WP:BOLD. Besides, the talk page of the BWV 53 is not "normally" the place where other articles and their content are discussed. Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography is for discussion of the content of the discography article (and its referencing style), not the talk page of the BWV 53 article. Yes, I'm the first major contributor of the discography page, so I normally take the lead on its referencing style. Are you saying that taking "first major contributor" status on the discography article away from me is one of the objectives of this AfD? Really...

  Again, it is not a content fork, at least not of a type that shouldn't exist on its own: WP:SPINOFFs are OK, and should not be dragged to AfD. You also keep ignoring that the list (i.e. the content of the table) is considerably more complete than what can be found in the recordings section of the BWV 53 article.

  Re. "... which you can add there yourself ..." – which I did. But that content is not visible any more, is it? I'd be happy if you made it reappear there. That is called "merging", so indeed, what you propose is "merging", not "deletion". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Re. "redirecting would be a valid option if this wasn't already partially copied from the article it's to be merged to, and if you weren't the sole contributor" neither has anything to do with the validity of a redirect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Re. "obviously you're not going to convince me that this is a valid fork" – I'm open to being convinced of whatever is reasonable. So give your reasons, instead of burying yourself in an (apparently) indefensible position. I only say that I can't see it as an invalid fork, currently. I'd even like to be convinced otherwise, but the RfC mentioned below decided otherwise, and I'm living by that consensus. Which implies a separate article for the more comprehensive discography, while it isn't included in the main article, by consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You boldly (arguably, for your own reasons) made a spinoff; people are questioning the validity of said spin off: that is a perfectly valid reason for AfD; please stop the rules-lawyering about mostly inexact procedural points (per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). I said I'm dropping it so I'm not going to be answering any further. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  AfD is not the "normal" place to question a spinoff. It can be if and when other, more collaborative, routes to find consensus were tried earlier on. Which isn't the case here. There was, I'm afraid, too much prejudgement in the minds of those who wanted this AfD at all cost, without premeditation in the form of lending an ear to those suggesting another approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated !vote, per DGG's rationale below: "merge/redirect" would still be my first choice (consistent with my earlier comments on the matter), and only "keep" as second choice, in the case the RfC outcome would not be subject to WP:CCC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per RandomCanadian above. The article orignally conceived and deliberately intended as fork has been reinstated with some different wording by the connivance of its creator after a deletion discussion. As it is it is effectively no more than a duplication of the main article it remains a superfluous fork. The creator's assertions above that the concerns of the first AfD are no longer present, and that it is not a fork, are unconvincing to say the least. And to assist the discussion below, where there are assertions that editors may not be aware of, or understand, what a fork is, I add here the definition under WP:CFORK- "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject.". Further, "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with policy". I therefore believe, and am confident that I have reason to believe, that the aricle here under discussion is a clear POV fork, inconsistent with WP policy. Smerus (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  It's what you suggested at the RFC: "There is always the option for someone to create a supplementary List article if they are keen to do so"[6], and all other support was based on that. Peter James (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per User:RandomCanadian and User:Smerus. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I'm trying to get a normal distribution of material relating to recordings of a work to its main and discography articles respectively, as it currently works, for instance, for (FA!) BWV 4 (and its discography), and (GA!) BWV 243 (and its discography), that is:
  1. No list of recordings in the main article about the composition: highlights of the composition's recording history are in the prose of the article. An actual list of recordings in the main article makes little sense if a more or less complete list of recordings is too large and for that reason put in a separate article.
  2. The separate discography article is in list form.

The concluded RfC on which recordings can be mentioned in the BWV 53 article prevents a more or less complete listing of recordings in that article, thus making a full listing of recordings in a separate article a quite normal proceeding, as also the conversion of the incomplete list to prose in the composition's article (who needs an incomplete list if a complete list is available elsewhere?). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we have just established in the first AfD that there should not be a content fork of the article. Also note that Francis Schonken suggested not to have a separate discography article not long ago. —Kusma (t·c) 12:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ... which was before the RfC (linked above) ended in a consensus to exclude part of the discography from the main article (which is already implemented). So, that's the current consensus about the BWV 53 article, after which a more comprehensive discography on a separate page is just a normal next step. Regards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Francis, try, once in a lifetime, not to divert the discussion with other references, and understand that the present objections are to the present article as a content fork.--Smerus (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerus, again, content forks are normally turned into redirects (even without AfD): the fact that you didn't !vote for it to be turned into a redirect is a clear indication that you don't believe it is a content fork, but that this is... I don't know what you think, but this all seems rather counterproductive to building an encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "content fork" argument: it isn't a content fork. What's more to say? The "content fork" argument was put forward without anyone explaining why it would be a content fork. Above, I gave an example why it isn't a content fork. Could give more examples. Are my counterarguments perhaps inconvenient for those contending it is a content fork but failing to explain why it would be? There's no diverting of the discussion by me. I explained what I'm working towards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit confused: so this subarticle has 9 or 10 more entries in the table than the main article, and a "time" column? That does not look like a good reason to have a subarticle, but really just a fork to display a different version of the table. —Kusma (t·c) 20:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• IMPORTANT: There have been a number of speculative comments in this AfD regarding the motivations behind the edits of various contributors to this AfD. This sort of behavior is inappropriate and needs to stop. To all of you; drop the sticks and back away. Any further comments should be directed solely towards reaching consensus about retention of this article. This is an AfD, not a battleground. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53#Recordings largely per RandomCanadian, as I agree this seems to be an unnecessary SPLIT since this is already covered there. I don't agree with the characterization of it as a content fork, and I don't understand what POV this supposedly represents (if the "POV" is just the "POV" that this should be a separate page, that doesn't count), but there's no need to resolve it on that basis. postdlf (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't object in principle to making this a deletion and redirect, only that I have a fear that it may be brought once more to resurrection. How would we prevent that happening?--Smerus (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In principle this could be made a redirect, but given that the regular search function would be able to point any readers interested to the correct section; and that there's no real need for a merge, it would be unecessary, and well we don't need more resurrections of this already once deleted article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and oppose redirect per the consensus at the first AFD which still applies. In reviewing the massive amount of time waisted on this issue in multiple locations from talk pages to AFD and RFC actions, all of this boils down to a case of forum shopping by User:Francis Schonken in which the user has attempted to countermand community consensus in multiple locations in regards to the inclusion criteria and referencing requirements of the discography of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde. In short this article was created in contradiction to the consensus reached at RFC and AFD and conversations of the main article's talk page. This sort of behavior is unacceptable. I strongly urge Francis Schonlen to read policy at Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and recognize that at some point one must choose to accept community consensus (even when we disagree) and let it go and move on to edit elsewhere. If this sort of behavior continues, I will be taking this to WP:ANI. I say this as a neutral observer who has not participated in any of these conversations previously.4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per my objections expressed at the previous discussion, as well as per User:RandomCanadian and User:Smerus. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography there was consensus that it could be included in the main article. Then at the RFC there was consensus not to include it. The discussion that led to the RFC is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions but there is not much participation and it is unlikely to change the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Recordings: "If the artist's or work's discography is extensive, it can be split out to a separate article". The "POV fork" argument would be that according to a guideline these don't meet the criteria for inclusion, whether in the main article or as a separate page, but the RFC was because of the number of recordings, so a WP:SPINOFF is recommended by the WikiProject guideline and acceptable according to Wikipedia:Content forking. Peter James (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Except the RfC at the article was not about removing the recordings altogether, but which ones should be included; which resulted in a "only significant ones [reviewed in independent sources]" limitation, which seems coherent with WP:NOTDATABSE. The fork is nothing but an attempt to circumvent that by including a non-consensus listing in avoidance of the conclusion of the RfC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section also says to provide a summary of major works and link to a separate discography, and it is accepted that no such limitation exists - there are many featured lists such as Johnny Winter discography (which seems to be the most recent discography to be promoted). The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography was only "delete" because the RFC was open and editors thought that it was short enough to be included in the main article. "There is always the option for someone to create a supplementary List article if they are keen to do so" was the only reason given in the RFC, and without that option the outcome would have been different. Peter James (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  From WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" - this looks like an attempt to circumvent that by creating discussion outcomes that contradict each other. If there is wider consensus to limit discographies in this way, it will result in deletion of most discography articles, including many that are featured lists such as the one I mentioned. Peter James (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikiproject guidelines are usually the thing that is LOCALCONSENSUS. If editors at a particular page decide that a more specific application at that particular page is required - in this case the reasoning was that this is one of the most recorded cantatas (being one for a solo singer) and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database-like listing of every recording of all of them. There was no consensus to remove the discography from the article; simply to keep it but with a bit of a stricter inclusion criteria. Whether this is a case of multiple contradicting guidelines which are not helping things (WP:CREEP comes to mind) is a different matter, but this doesn't change that, in the current state, the article under discussion was created in clear opposition to an existing consensus against it's existence (both at AfD and at the article talk page). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Local consensus also applies to individual AFDs, for example, which is what I was referring to. Consensus at the first AFD was not the content shouldn't exist, but that it could be included in the main article. If every "delete, it can be included in the main article" or similar is changed to "keep", which it would be based on the consensus at the RFC, the AFD consensus disappears and the RFD applies, which was about whether it should be in the main article. Similarly, if every "a separate discography can be created" is removed from the RFD the consensus there is reversed. For WP:NOTDATABASE there is consensus that some complete lists belong in an encyclopedia; these include discographies as well as other topics such as NRHP lists. Do you think there is now consensus throughout the site to include only notable items in discographies or are you arguing for that as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here? Peter James (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think RandomCanadian's recent changes to the WP:NOT policy, e.g. [7] (to put it mildly: not very well coordinated with WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY), also telling. I reverted the attempt to change the policy: this needs further discussion and strong consensus if such policy change would be acceptable. I don't think Wikipedia should change policies every time an editor with a bee in his or her bonnet passes. Under current policies and other guidance, bibliographies and discographies are a common component of the encyclopedia, that is, of course when complying to the "context information" requirement of WP:NOTDIR, which is the case for the Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Hammersoft:, User:Francis Schonken and User:RandomCanadian are clearly having battles elsewhere in WP, but can these battles please be excluded from this thread and can we keep to its topic? I have been aware that it is a frequent part of Francis Schonken's tactics to fork discussions by bringing in all sorts of other material to obscure the matter being discussed -and indeed that is a basic resaon why the present disucssion has come about - but some sort of focus would be helpful. Both he and RandomCanadian have cast their votes here - enough already!--Smerus (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering honest questions; but ok, I'll stop. As for Francis again detracting the conversation by bringing up a minor clarification (unless he's saying that excessive listings of books and publications are exempt from WP:NOT, which is the actual non-consensus position) that has absolutely no link to this AfD (if he took a moment to look at the date that would be plainly and blatantly obvious), that's his problem; and I'm not obliged to answer, indeed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is consensus for that or not, but there is context in this discography as well as being a WP:SPINOFF of content that is only missing from the main article because of length. When fewer recordings had been made, these would have been encyclopedic content, and that doesn't change when new recordings are released. Peter James (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James, in case you were in any doubt, I think we also get your point by now.--Smerus (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is not all that much extra content in this additional article. A few more recordings do not seem to me to merit a spinoff article. (Note also that we have spent an amazing amount of effort has been spent on the question whether 20 or 30 recordings should be presented to readers. I don't super care about that, but I am opposed to having one version with 20 recordings and another one with 30 recordings at the same time). —Kusma (t·c) 13:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sourcing and inclusion concerns. I haven't had time to go through the article to review sources carefully, but I have some strong concerns about sources just on a cursory check. Some of the urls link to websites selling materials and do not support the content (for example Melchior Hoffmann (1679–1715): "Sound your knell, blest hour of parting" – Funeral Music – formerly attributed to J. S. Bach (BWV 53) is one url in the article that goes to a page selling material and not an actual reference work). This is unacceptable promotion of a for profit company, as well as drawing into question the verifiability of the list. Reviewers who are willing to go through and check that cited sources are being represented properly should do so. Ultimately, I am concerned that this expanded version of the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. One of the issues with recordings in the field of classical music is that there is a lot of self published material and boot leg recordings of well known literature that aren't notable. The fact that record labels are not included on this list is telling. In general, recordings released on an established record label are notable, but those on pirate labels or small indie labels (usually self published) are not. Contrary to what Peter James is claiming, there is a broad consensus at WP:NOT for information to be curated properly by context and WP:VERIFIABILITY. One of the issues raised on the article's talk page about the items on this expanded list were notability concerns. I share that concern, simply because not all recordings are notable (particularly when they are self published vanity projects with no third party coverage in reliable reference works). I am not convinced that: A. The expanded list adds valuable content. B. That the expanded list is supported by sources that meet wikipedia's standards at WP:Reliable sources C. That WP:SPINOFF applies because the additions by USER:Francis Schonken are either not discriminate or not verifiable. Ultimately, this AFD is asking us to weigh content inclusion, which to my mind isn't the the role of AFD, (i.e. monitoring what gets put on a list). Given the consensus of editors actually watching and editing that article to not use the material being indiscriminately added by Francis Schonken, its my belief that we should defer to that consensus.4meter4 (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note on bootleg recordings. Sometimes notable artists get recorded without their knowledge during live concerts, and then people sell those materials online without the artists themselves being paid. This happens with some frequency in the classical musical world, which is why verifying a recording is on a reputable label is important. We shouldn't' be promoting illegal content.4meter4 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bootleg recordings probably shouldn't be included but that is not what these are - I checked the most recent that is missing from the main article and it's on a notable label, has an entry in WorldCat which says there are copies held by libraries, and has a review as one of its sources. You have also misunderstood the purpose of the breitkopf.com link - it's the website of a publisher (Breitkopf & Härtel), not just a retailer, and it is not the web page itself that is being cited, but a publication listed on that page ("EB 7053 piano vocal score"). Peter James (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, linking to the publisher's website is at worst self promotional and at best the use of a primary source. If a recording is notable there should be some sort of secondary or tertiary sources not connected to the publisher (who has a financial motive to promote the material it publishes) to verify notability. This is an example of bad referencing decisions. Additionally, the list should add label information since that is standard in discographies on wikipedia. Spot checking one source, does not prove the rest of the list doesn't include a bootleg, and the lack of label information makes it impossible tell without going through and checking every single item. 4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher's website was being used in the lead section, not as a source for a recording. I agree there are problems here with references, such as that one, and I was mistaken here - that citation is claimed to be both the website and the publication mentioned there. The lead section also has primary sources where secondary sources are probably needed. I don't know if that would affect what is included in the list - other discographies, including those that have only been promoted to Wikipedia:Featured lists recently, have only primary sources for some entries. Peter James (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James, with respect, then those other lists should not have been promoted to a featured list without addressing those sourcing issues. If I had been a reviewer I would have raised the issues in a review. Wikipedia process is not always consistent at implementing policy everywhere all the time. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not convincing.4meter4 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't about the AfD really, I'll just put a small note about the Breitkopf publication: it appears to be only a score (without critical commentary) so except maybe for the attribution to a particular composer (and we'd rather cite a more suitable source which goes into further detail about this) it's inappropriate; even coming from a reputed musical publisher. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy – talk about off-topic in an AfD discussion. None of these issues provide sound AfD rationale (even if they would be justified, which seems far from the case). Inasmuch as they could be germane they should have been raised on the article's (or the discography's) talk page. Nobody asked to bring such points here in a "if you throw enough mud at the wall something will stick" approach... and then reproach others that you brought them here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was off-topic (talking about a specific source and article content) long ago; as I was pointing out... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• merge all documented recordings There is no justification for separating the discography from the article on the work unless the two are very much large rthan this. The main article is where anyone would look, and sending the reader to two places is a little absurd. If this is going to take another RfC, it should be a general one applying to all forms of music. (I'm a little startled checking now how few of the major classical works there are for which we have discographies of any sort at all, and perhaps those who are competent to prepare them would do better to write them, than argue about where to put them. ) DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Stahl[edit]

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

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

Cannot find secondary sources for it. Does not meet notability. Manic Monk (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article needs cleanup and better sourcing but he appears to pass WP:PROF#C1 by his many highly-cited publications (even in a highly cited field) [8]. Nominator does not appear to have even considered our academic notability guidelines, as the nomination statement only addresses GNG-based criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS as founding editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning he also appears to pass #C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein. Article needs sourcing, but subject does merit an article based on WP:PROF#C1. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with over 10k citations in total and 18 papers with 100+ citations passes WP:NPROF, even in a high citation field like CS. Also, secondary sources are not required for the article since its an academic. --hroest 02:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Authored two books with over a 1,000 citations as well as many well cited papers [9]. --Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG. Whatever other notability guidelines exist, they still need to be verified through significant, reliable sources. The article is nearly 10 years old with no actual sources listed. Delete, anyone interested in keeping the article can draft space it until they add enough citations to qualify for notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For WP:PROF, the sources do not need to be independeent, so GNG is irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • PROF Criterion 1 specifically requires "independent reliable sources". Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That means independent sources that cite his. You see the little number "Citations: 11507" in the upper right corner of https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=P3igc9gAAAAJ? Those are 11507 sources, mostly independent and mostly reliable, about Stahl's work. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Macktheknifeau: Please see the General notes that are written for exactly this purpose: "Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." As David points above, notability cannot be established by the subject itself (eg me claiming to have 10k research papers citing my work) but through independent sources and verifiable sources (we can go in and inspect each of these 11507 to check that they rely cite Gerry Stahl), *then* we can use non-independent sources to write the article. This is common practice for academics. --hroest 21:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You still need to cite the sources. The article has no independent sources. Delete, and if anyone wants to keep a draft of the article, they can feel free to do so, improve the page and then ask for it to be republished. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You still need to read WP:DINC and WP:BEFORE. AfD is not about cleanup and notability is not about what's in the article now. In fact, the main reason I haven't put effort into improving the article yet (as I often do at AfDs when it becomes obvious that the articles are notable but need cleanup) is your intransigent attitude insisting incorrectly that the cleanups must happen before the article is kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • here is the independent source, nowhere in WP:PROF does it say that the sources need to be cited in the article. Please read WP:NPROF. --hroest 18:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passed WP:NPROF and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It clearly fails WP:NPROF as it needs "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". There is not a single paragraph referring to the subject in what can be considered independent reliable source. May be it exists and I couldn't dig it up, then please post it before concluding the discussion. Which is the gist of what Macktheknifeau also was saying.

This decision is going to impact more than this page's keep or delete because throughout Wikipedia there are articles on academics that are almost in the same area of study and others too that are not notable as perWP:NPROF. The keep on this page can be taken as sure call for all academics in the world with a home page in a university or even a personal website to make Wikipedia into LinkedIn. Manic Monk (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Manic Monk on what is this perspective based? We currently have a lack of notable academics in Wikipedia, some of the most prominent and widely-cited academics do not have articles in Wikipedia while many singers, artists and athletes do. Can you please explain how this article fails WP:NPROF and please be specific since it clearly passes WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 18:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• here is your independent source, unless you can explain how the subject was able to influence Google to manipulate this page. Please read the notability guidelines on WP:PROF which were specifically designed and adopted with consensus after several embarrassing incidents where people used exactly this kind of argument to delete articles about notable people. If you have issues with the rules, please discuss them at the appropriate talk page of WP:NPROF, that would be the right place to change the rules. --hroest

A list of works or researched he's published isn't a reliable, independent source for notability in the same way that a list of books an author has written isn't. Yes, he's a well known academic. No, that doesn't make him inherently notable. Significant Coverage in Multiple, Independent, Reliable Sources. That's the only guideline that matters. GNG is not a hard bar to pass, it only needs two clear examples. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 18:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is explicitly no need to pass WP:GNG if WP:NPROF is met. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, GNG does not apply here, how hard is this to understand? Nobody argues that this person passes GNG, the argument is that they pass WP:PROF. --hroest 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• hroest Google scholar is only an index and a list, it does not say anything. Not an independent secondary source that is reliable but its lists may have articles that meet independent reliable sources. Of the several citations listed there not one paragraph could be gotten of the subject so far, still trying. This is due in part to the citation gaming that goes on that is necessary for academics especially in some fields like that of the subject. The argument that there are too many pages for artists but too little for academics is not that good to keep poorly sourced and not notable academic pages. It is very alarming actually that to match the numbers with the numbers of articles on artists the criteria will be reduced Google scholar that will give the scenario of Wikipedia being the new LinkedIn. On a related note google searches, and not what shows up in searches, can be used in the same way as criteria for making up pages in wikipedia for anybody. Macktheknifeau and

• citation counts are *not* the same as Google searches, they are one (among many) measures of an academics impact on their field. I don't see how keeping the current policy for academics will turn Wikipedia into the new LinkedIn, especially as the standards in WP:PROF are relatively strict. Again, if you like to change current policy then this should be discussed at WP:NPROF and its discussion page. --hroest 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One paragraph mentioning the subject from any one of the articles indexed by google from out of a reliable source. Until then it should not be passed. This decision will affect Wikipedia very severely. Manic Monk (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• come on, please do your research before making an argument. Can you please explain how keeping the status quo will "impact Wikipedia severly" exactly? --hroest 00:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It seems his books have been highly cited, so despite below-average Scopus/WoS-indexed article citations (compared to coauthors/etc.) I think his scholarly impact has been established. JoelleJay (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than 11k citations in google scholar is enough for notability. Also, its not that academics need to have secondary source mentions per WP:NPROF for being notable. Chiro725 (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lee Fudge[edit]

Samuel Lee Fudge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Vanity article. Does not meet WP:NACTOR, WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. Autobiographical article on a subject that has never starred in nor directed a notable film nor have they received any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources as per WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curious on why page is being suggested for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfudge38 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is as per my rationale above. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per a BEFORE, I found two interviews in VoyageATL, an Atlanta-based magazine (interviews here and here), and then an article from the Augusta Chronicle here talking about how the subject appears in three scenes as a marcher in the film Selma. I don't believe the first two from VoyageATL count toward meeting GNG; the Augusta Chronicle piece does, but does one article GNG make? --Kbabej (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Autobiographical elements seem to have been removed, additional article found. Subject is still early in career so GN is possible. Anastasios999 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to wait until he meets NACTOR or GNG and then create the article then? I don't understand the need to create articles on people who might meet GNG later. Also see WP:CRYSTAL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree it would be better to wait before creating an article, why delete the existing one only to have to recreate it later? Give it time and if the subject has no more roles or career movement delete it then. Don’t think WP:CRYSTAL applies.Anastasios999 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Voyage ATL and Hy-Lo News articles are on my view, reliable sources independent of the subject. These two articles are significant coverage. Two such articles means he meets GNG. The wiki page being short, or about someone who only has small roles or hasn't directed a notable film does not remove the notability gained from the two articles that qualify him as a person for GNG. Crystal and Nactor are irrelevant for someone who has already passed GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the Voyage pieces are just brief interviews. We generally prefer articles where other people talk about the subject rather than the subject talking about himself. The Hy-Lo piece was just a brief quote from him with no real depth of coverage. I can't access the Augusta Chronicle article for some reason but per WP:AGF I'm happy to accept that it has significant coverage. The real question is whether an article can pass GNG on one good source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider a "brief interview" I consider significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the interviews and the Hy-Lo piece enable the subject to pass GNG. Anastasios999 (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How? In what way is a subject talking about themselves 'significant coverage' (this is all that the Voyage sources are)? The Hy-Lo piece only trivially mentions Fudge. There is nothing even close to showing the depth of coverage required here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a reason for the sources to not be considered reliable, there's no reason why an interview isn't independent, significant coverage under GNG. I think you're letting your desire to have the article deleted cloud your recognition of the GNG guidelines.Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definition for the ”the depth of coverage required” in GNG.Anastasios999 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain how someone talking about themselves meets the requirements of 'significant coverage independent of the subject'? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are misusing the word "independent". An article source can't be "independent" of the subject because if it were independent of the subject it wouldn't be about the subject at all. It's the independence of the source that matters. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the subject talking about himself does not count towards GNG. It is what other people say about him that counts as coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the subject is not talking about himself as in a press release, which is not allowed under GNG, but is being interviewed, however briefly, by an independent party. There is nothing about interviews not being allowed. Anastasios999 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not forbidden and I'm sure that there are many GAs and FAs that incorporate interview sources in an appropriate way. I do have an issue when they are used as the sole claim to notability, though; remember we are talking about an actor that has no notable roles in notable productions as well! We need to remember why Wikipedia has notability guidelines in the first place. This is obviously a vanity article and an autobiography and makes no attempt to not appear as one. We need to remember that Wikipedia has clear goals (see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI and others) and if the bar to notability really is so low that you can get through with a couple of articles consisting almost entirely of the subject talking about himself, then we have to consider the direction that Wikipedia is heading in. I've made no attempt to hide the fact that I feel an absolutely strong sense of disgust for anyone that decides to use Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion, as is the case here. Anyway, for fear of WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, I will leave it at that and not make any further comments as I've said all that needs to be said. Hopefully, this discussion will stay open for a while longer so that a few other editors can weigh in with their opinion on the notability (or lack thereof) of this actor. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could be an up and comer in the film world but no notable coverage from sources that Wikipedia considers reliable. In the entertainment world think Deadline or Hollywood Reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminsurance (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The roles fall short of WP:NACTOR/WP:NAUTHOR. In terms of WP:GNG coverage:
  • The article from The Augusta Chronicle is significant coverage from an independent reliable source
  • The Hy-Lo News article is not significant coverage
  • The two VoyageATL "Meet ___, Instagram handle: ___, Facebook profile: ___" interviews don't really constitute significant coverage from independent sources. The interviewee (i.e. the source of information) is not independent from the subject of the article.
  Not enough for GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MarkH21 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Robertson[edit]

R. J. Robertson (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 for not citing any sources JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 19:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:AUTHOR and cites no sources, therefore, fails WP:GNG Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We need to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Johnpacklambert: I agree. Let IMDB be IMDB. This mirroring is unacceptable. JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 21:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • At one point I tried bringing to procedural deletion some articles sourced only to IMBd but had them all removed with not even an attempt to find any other sources by the other editor. There are clearly far too many editors who ignore the consensus that IMDb is not reliable. Overall there are too many editors that act as if Wikipedia has a grandfather clause and that the existence of an article on Wikipedia is almost in and of itself of some value or worth. It is very frustrating how many truly sub-standard virtually non-sourced or actually non-sourced articles there are on Wikupedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Johnpacklambert. The main problem is that it's too easy to create a barely sourced BLP; maybe a few mins of time will be taken, nothing more. The problem, however, is that it often takes several more minutes to do a proper WP:BEFORE search and then at least a week of AfD to get it deleted and the WP:BURDEN is often on the person proposing deletion when it should be on the creator of said article, in my view... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I think all new articles should go through AfC. On the other hand that is its own odd system which has no time limit. I posted an article there back on Feb. 11th, and it is still not formed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no perfect solution, sadly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - found no reliable sources that show significant coverage of the subject. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no notable roles so clearly acting career fails WP:NACTOR, no evidence as far as I can see that WP:CREATIVE is met. Most importantly, no evidence of WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources, snow is falling. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2-plan project management software[edit]

2-plan project management software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

References used in the article seem to be directly related to the company producing the software. Might not meet notability requirement. Anton.bersh (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to find any decent secondary coverage to show notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon & District Football League[edit]

Wimbledon & District Football League (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 league's top division sits 3 tiers below the agreed cut-off for notability for football leagues in England.

It seems that even local papers are quite reluctant to cover this league in any detail. I have tried a number of search engines and also looked through Google Books and searched newspaper archives. For example, in newspaper archives, I have tried searching "Wimbledon District League", Wimbledon and District League", "Wimbledon and District Football League" and "Wimbledon & District Football League". Nothing better than occasional results listings in Norwood News. Looks like this fails WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough news coverage for WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Local league football. Nigej (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Solutions[edit]

Cambridge Solutions (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:CORP. Most of the citations seem to be non-existing links. Not enough sources found on searches either. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this AFD was rather annoying. Firstly, the article suffers from severe link rot. I ran IABot on it to rescue what little I could, and my assessment of the sources is below:

1. Trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH (not sigcov), company profile. Rescued by IABot.
2. More trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, inclusion in a seemingly non-noteworthy "top 10" list
3. Source dead, 'archive' is a bunch of google fonts.
4. Another dead source. From the title looks like another "top 100" list, but cannot verify it even existed.
5. Saved by IABot. Very promotional, and indeed is "Sourced From: Cambridge Solutions Ltd". This won't contribute to notability.
6. Saved by IABot. Not sigcov per CORPDEPTH, just another office opening
7. Source dead. Title makes it look like a listing on the stock exchange, which would be trvial coverage if so.
8. Not sure about this one - I can't access it for some reason, the server is probably down. Possibly an example of "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as... of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel", which would mean the source fails CORPDEPTH.

Now for a WP:BEFORE search. There seem to be several "cambridge solutions" that do different things (separate businesses). Setting aside the usual listings and compilations of information which do not count to notability, I was only able to find [10] and [11], the first of which does not contribute to notability as an example of trivial coverage. As a result, this does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Pahunkat (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for businesses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everything above. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Gaikwad (politician)[edit]

Ashok Gaikwad (politician) (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 politician. Fails WP:NPOL. No evidence of the claim made in the article that he is considered a 'dominating' and 'favorite' leader. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, but this article does not demonstrate any preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him into Wikipedia independently of a candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kuki Grewal[edit]

Kuki Grewal (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 Actor. Fails WP:GNG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tagged for GNG since 2015. -Cupper52^Discuss! 18:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough news coverage for WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The subject does not meet any criteria of WP:NACTOR. Applying the less strict WP:BASIC where WP:SIGCOV is not always required compared to WP:GNG, the subject is still not notable. Two of three sources provided in the article are too trivial; the remaining one is not wp:independent being an interview without original content. Doing wp:before searches yield very low quality results that are either not relevant, not wp:reliable, or not wp:independent. For valid sources, the combined coverage as required by WP:BASIC is not significant enough to warrant an article. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete snow is falling. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Simply being a public service utility does not mean that a company is notable. Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental 360 Solutions[edit]

Environmental 360 Solutions (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:COMPANY. The sources cited are press releases, routine coverage in local newspapers about "garbage pickup", and mention in trade journals. This secondary source had some detail, but not nearly enough to establish notability, and I was unable to locate other secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Full disclosure: I wrote the article. First time writing article, saw that there's a section in Markham, Ontario (place I grew up in) for Miller Group (construction company) and garbage collection. Thought I could contribute the same way by finding a business that had a few more sources than the article for Miller, following layout, and to try writing on Wikipedia. The most notable citations, I could find of company I wrote about were Globe and Mail, The Star, and City News. Sorry for any inconvenience. Catpaperscissors (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Catpaperscissors: I think you might have used wp:other stuff exists badly when creating the article. I would advise not creating pages based on the existence of some other pages.

  Don't worry about inconvenience, it is not really an inconvenience since after the discussion has closed, there will be a consensus on whether the article should exists and future users can avoid the same mistake of creating an non-notable article. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Evaluting based on WP:NCORP, sources provided in the article fails WP:ORGCRIT as they do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:INDEPENDENT. It is also evidenced by the content of the article itself where the content solely consists of a history overview of the company, meaning there is not much information outside of wp:routine coverage. Before searches online do not yield additional sources that can satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they are not wp:independent. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep since it is a public service utility company. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep because it is a public service utility company. The public, and therefore the encyclopedia, has a vested interest in these kinds of companies because of their impact.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Undergarment. Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panty line[edit]

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

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

There is a deletion request over on Commons regarding, effectively, creepshots in the "panty line" category. In looking through it, I had to wonder: why do we even have an article on this. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (nor Urban Dictionary), and it seems there's not much to say about this topic other than the term's definition, origin, and usage. If we had some sort of very inclusive glossary of fashion, it might merit a merge/redirect, but I haven't found a suitable topic (clothing terminology is a little more, you know, actually connected to clothing). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Undergarment (and maybe add a relevant sentence there). I agree with the nominator about WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I took a quick look for other sources and found mostly passing mentions in fashion how-to guides (Dress to Impress, Dressing Smart in the New Millennium, Look Like a Winner After 50, ...). Cheers, gnu57 18:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agree with the redirect and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki any useful material to Wiktionary and delete the rest. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it seems like this article is never going to be anything but a dictionary definition. No point in keeping it here. Dronebogus (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We allready had this dicussion aubout the german version in 2015.[12] The result was Keep. BTW it is not only a woman thing. As the male actors on Star Trek The Next Generation where requierd to wear special underpants to avoid said VPL. Or in other words: you may have seen it for 7 years. B/C you did not see it. (Minute 3) [13]--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the German Wikipedia does has no relevance on what the English Wikipedia does. And I have no idea why the sex of the person in question has anything to do with the argument. The last sentence (which is technically broken into two fragments) barely makes any sense so I can’t really respond to that, sorry. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a wiktionary entry, we are not a dictionary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:DICDEF, and also per Dronebogus's orthographical analysis of a comment verging on a 'delete' !vote. ——Serial 14:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Undergarment. I can believe it's possible to turn this into an article about women's health / fashion, but until somebody steps up with the sources to do it, an article is not appropriate. However, it's a valid search term. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Undergarment.4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can support a redirect. Dronebogus (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear conclusion that as a medical article this isn’t helpful or appropriate but where or how we do this (if at all) we can leave editors to discuss and agree what kind of redirect, replacement or other solution is best. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse (medical)[edit]

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

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

(Responding to a call for attention from an expert in Cardiology, pending from 2019). 'Collapse' is a colloquial rather than a medical term, that seems to be used in medical literature with various meanings:

• abrupt loss of postural tone, with or without transient loss of consciousness https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653900/
• presyncope https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27107684/
• non-traumatic transient loss of consciousness https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16078771/

This may explain why this stub has only been relying on a single source for a number of years (other sources give different definitions). Being devoid of any standard medical meaning, the very existence of this article may be unwarranted. Moreover, given the above, I cannot see how this article is of high importance in Cardiology. It could be replaced by mentioning in Collapse (disambiguation) that, 'in medicine, collapse may refer to syncope or loss of pustural muscle tone', in a style similar to blackout (disambiguation); or perhaps some more refined restructuring of the disambiguation page (which could also include circulatory collapse). NikosGouliaros (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NikosGouliaros (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' you are probably right, but can't we just list & link out such medical meanings as can be well-sourced? At the least there should be a redirect, I suppose to syncope. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Although the above definitions may be cited from single articles, and the colloquial term 'collapse' seems to be broader than the medical term syncope, in medical literature it is generally used as a synonym of syncope. ICD-10 itself lists syncope and collapse together, with no other disambiguation. In my mind, a new 'Medicine' section in collapse (disambiguation) may be the right place to redirect via link to syncope, and also mention circulatory collapse (which, by the way, may warranty merging with Shock (circulatory)) and lung collapse. This is what it could look like. (Syncope itself is not an easy term to define, and more problems arise as the broader but valid term loss of consciousness redirects to unconsciousness, no page as postural tone exists, and posture redirects to good posture. Luckily, Syncope (medicine) contains information on what conditions mimic but don't qualify as syncope.) NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator. The term is very widely used, although imprecise. It cannot always be determine whether someone lands on the floor as a result of a simple fall versus transient loss of consciousness (in the UK "collapse query cause"). Matters are much harder still in the absence of a clear recollection from the patients and the lack of an eyewitness account. I think there is some merit in keeping this article. It would need to be expanded to explain to the reader how one would go about distinguishing between the various causes. JFW | T@lk 13:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Distinguishing between various types of 'dropping in the floor' is a tough clinical problem and an interesting subject. However, I wonder if 'collapse' could be generally accepted as an appropriate term to discuss the above. For example, in the source the current article is based on, 'collapse' does not presuppose loss of consciousness, and explicitly excludes simple falling. I think an article on (transient?) loss of consciousness might be more appropriate; it seems to be much more widely used as a chapter heading in medical textbooks. NikosGouliaros (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Syncope_(medicine), barring an improvement in the references that clearly indicates this should be a standalone, I think a simple redirect is the best course. But I don't have strong objections to the suggestions by NikosGouliaros I think the keep arguments by the creator, are clear indications of why it should not be kept. Jeepday (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Amend as per NikosGouliaros suggestion. Collapse might not be a medical term technically, but we need to keep it and link to what is, as people will search collapse. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Syncope is not a common name and a collapse might have other causes such as intoxication. As it is a significant and common symptom, we should have a clear entry covering the various possibilities. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: I left a request for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. NikosGouliaros (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Andrew. It is a significant and common symptom. A prose article with links to longer articles is a better way to handle this than having items listed on a disambiguation page. Bondegezou (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too ambiguous. There are multiple problems here. First, we have one single source, and while it is a review article and thus meets MEDRS, it technically talks about "Transient Loss of Consciousness", although it does note that this is colloquially sometimes referred to as "collapse". At best, we could have "collapse" redirect and call this article Transient Loss of Consciousness. But even that would really require us to expand the article and get many more sources to do an article on TLOC.

But this brings us to a second problem, which is that the one RS we have is about how TLOC is a nonspecific clinical sign, and it then discusses a proper differential diagnosis and the various issues surrounding that. Wikipedia is really not the place for what would essentially become clinical practice guidelines. I see no real way to have a page about how to differentiate between several causes of TLOC (including a few not mentioned in the abstract) without crossing the line into WP:OR and providing medical advice. Even a disambiguation page would be risky because the very creation of such a page requires more RS than we have here, along with predictable debates about which conditions really belong on that disambiguation page.

I cannot see the use of a page for the colloquial term for a common sign that might indicate one of a number of different medical conditions, and that would be even if I had a hypothetical load of MEDRS sources to work with, which we don't in this case. None of the options seem appealing, some may prove unworkable, and I'm not sure how any of it improves the encyclopedia. The concept, while understandable, is too ambiguous to be properly encyclopedic. Hyperion35 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per Andrew rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe amend. Still, I think Hyperion35 has made a strong case for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApproximateLand (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is not a topic. That is to say, this article does not have a well-defined scope. I am thoroughly unconvinced by the argument that it should be kept because It is a significant and common symptom., because it's not—it's an ambiguous term which could refer to one of several things. As the nomination notes it is devoid of any standard medical meaning, and what it refers in any particular context may range from loss of postural tone without loss of consciousness to presyncope (for anyone who cannot access https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27107684/, it says Collapse or synonymous presyncope were defined as transient alteration of consciousness, but without complete loss of consciousness)—in other words, it might refer to a loss of postural tone without altered consciousness or conversely altered consciousness without loss of postural tone. That means that from a medical point of view, two cases of "collapse" may not have any characteristics whatsoever in common.
  I think the comparison made with blackout is particularly apt–vastly dissimilar conditions that may be referred to with the same inexact/ambiguous term. The idea that A prose article with links to longer articles is a better way to handle this than having items listed on a disambiguation page. seems misguided to me, not to mention contrary to WP:NOTDIC (In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.)—I don't think anyone would propose creating a prose article called blackout (medical) to replace blackout#Medicine. For that matter, elevated body temperature is a significant and common symptom (well, technically it's a sign), and some of the other arguments that have been presented in favour of retaining this article could equally well be adapted to argue in favour of creating elevated body temperature, but medically we distinguish between fever and hyperthermia and those are the appropriate articles to have, not elevated body temperature. Likewise, reddening of the skin is a common and significant feature of a variety of clinical conditions, caused by a variety of different mechanisms, and these can be distinguished by other indicators (such as the presence or absence of macroscopic skin defects along with the characteristics of those defects, whether applying pressure makes the redness recede, and so on). It would be preposterous to propose creating a prose article called red skin (medical) on the grounds that "erythema is not a common name and red skin might have other causes such as hematoma" (to paraphrase an argument advanced above). Put simply, it is a bad idea to have medical articles for these kinds of vague, inexact, imprecise, ambiguous, and/or ill-defined terms.
  I don't think redirecting to Syncope (medicine) is appropriate, for two reasons. Firstly because it is a poor match for the stand-alone term "collapse" in medical contexts (as noted above), and secondly because when the term "collapse" is used in medical contexts, it is usually a specified type of collapse (which should have some kind of modifier, but the modifier may be omitted if context makes it clear what is meant) such as circulatory/hemodynamic/cardiovascular collapse, airway collapse, or vertebral collapse rather than the general "collapse". These factors combine to make it an inappropriate redirect inasmuch as it makes it more difficult to find the content one is looking for.
  I see three valid options here: (1) delete this article without changing collapse, (2) delete this article and change collapse per NikosGouliaros's suggestion, or (3), change collapse per the suggestion at User:NikosGouliaros/sandbox2 and redirect collapse (medical) to collapse#Medicine. I don't have any strong opinions as to which of the three options would be the most appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a somewhat non-Wikipedian comment, but I believe it may be useful, coming from my own background in healthcare policy. A search of the ICD-10 lists multiple entries that involve the word collapse, including Collapse NOS Following a Procedure, but most forms of "collapse" reference an actual (if sometimes vague or suspected) cause, even where the cause is suspected to be psychogenic. A CMS-1500 with the comment "well, the patient there just collapsed" with no further documentation is going to be returned with a request for clarification, at best, and some questions from investigators at worst. It is clear that a physician or other clinician is expected to make an attempt to diagnose the cause of the collapse, and provide appropriate treatment. At the very least, to use a proper ICD code, the provider had better distinguish between cardiovascular, cardiopulmonary, heat, or syncope as a cause, and that's just for codes with the word "collapse". Realistically, that provider had better also make an effort to investigate and consider epilepsy, cataplexy, narcolepsy, hypoglycemia, simple dehydration, hyponaetremia, exhaustion, intoxication, and the list goes on for the various ICD codes that might be described by someone collapsing with or without a loss of consciousness.

My point is, there is no acceptable manner for a healthcare provider to bill for treating a patient who has "just collapsed", not without being much more specific. In the USA, at least, in my experience you simply will not find adequate sources for something that cannot be billed, because billing documentation is essentially how everything in medicine is defined. So you will find sources discussing differential diagnosis, sources discussing treatment for specific conditions, but you're just not going to find sources that just discuss "collapse" because the language and terminology has no need for this word or term on its own without reference to anything else. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea that our medical coverage should be determined by US billing procedures seems quite bizarre. Note that this is an international project and other countries have different methods. For example, I'm in the UK which has a National Health Service. Anyway, here's a few counter-examples which discuss some common types of collapse:

1. Collapse in the Endurance Athlete
2. Rhabdomyolysis in elderly people after collapse
3. Maternal collapse
4. Rate of recurrent collapse after vaccination with whole cell pertussis vaccine

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All four articles use "collapse" differently: "inability to walk unassisted, with or without exhaustion, nausea, vomiting, or cramps" [1]; any reason for falling and staying on the floor is implied [2]; "an acute event involving the cardiorespiratory systems and/or brain, resulting in a reduced or absent conscious level" [3]; "a hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode or shock-like syndrome" [4]. As a set, these articles clearly point to a wide spectrum of medical conditions, mostly affecting circulation, consciousness, and muscular tone (wider than loss of consciousness or postural tone but including them); so wide a spectrum that I cannot imagine how it could be discussed in an encyclopedic article, which must begin by some short of definition. More than an encyclopedic article, it points to a dictionary entry for "collapse": the word is used in the above sources in the loose, ill-defined way it would be used in everyday speech. It therefore reminds of the way it is used in the examples of User:Hyperion35. On the other hand, being an inexperienced editor, I may be mistaken and I'm open to any suggestion on how a "Collapse (medical)" article could be written. Hoping I'm not bludgeoning: NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those four different definitions make me think that a WP:SETINDEX would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, I apologize, the reason I mentioned medical billing is both because it is an area I am professionally familiar with, but also because in the USA, our health system is highly decentralized and so billing is one of the few areas where government regulations and thus standardizations focus. Clinical practice is generally guided by the specialty and subspecialty societies and (God help us) physician experience. Various boards handle licensing. But it's only when it comes to billing that you generally find true oversight over the practice of medicine in the USA. This is important to this topic, because as User:NikosGouliaros correctly points out, "collapse" is a sign that could indicate a wide range of problems. So cardiologists are going to have an entirely different set of guidelines than neurologists, for example. It is possible that the American Academy of Family Physicians (potential COI: I once worked for a subspecialty society that worked with AAFP on issues unrelated to this article) might have broader guidelines that may be useful. But at the end of the day, American sources at least are unlikely to spend much time on "collapse" as a broad category, because physician documentation is going to have to be more specific, otherwise CMS or the state Medicaid agency or the insurer is going to send it back with the equivalent of those Wikipedia tags that say "more information is needed" (and without any payment). I cannot speak for NHS or HealthCanada or other English language healthcare systems, although I have little doubt that they are likely better organized. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a collapse may have a variety of causes and outcomes. But this just means that it's a broad topic, not that we should delete it. In this, it is like numerous other broad conditions or concepts such as injury, disease, rash and ageing. And notice that these are all articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being referred to broad topics gave me an "a-ha" moment, and I tried imagining what such an article would be like. It seems it gets too confusing, in the sense Blackout#Mecicine would be if discussed as a broad topic, instead of a disambiguation page. You can check out what I mean here. I don't know where it could go from here; for instance, what short of Differential diagnosis section could include prostration and syncope? If anyone has anything specific to suggest, I'm willing to give it another try. NikosGouliaros (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The difference between this and injury, disease, and so on is that each of those actually is a broad concept, and not disparate topics sharing a term. Of course, it's not always immediately obvious whether medical concepts belong to the former or latter category; cardiogenic shock, hypovolemic shock, neurogenic shock, and anaphylactic shock are all part of the WP:BROADCONCEPT circulatory shock, but circulatory shock, shell shock, and spinal shock are not part of a broad concept that could be called shock (medical) (put another way, the first group consists of different types of shock, whereas the latter consists of different senses of "shock"). To give a more everyday example, "sex" as in sex chromosome or sexual dimorphism is not the same "sex" as in oral sex or sexual intercourse. Likewise, the different meanings of "collapse" in medical contexts here result in what is essentially an equivocation. Medically, the inability to walk unassisted (Sallis 2004), presyncope (Keller et al. 2016) and non-traumatic transient loss of consciousness (Thijs et al. 2005) are not part of a single, broad topic.

This is not like dizziness, an imprecise term used by laypeople which still has a clearly understood meaning as a collective term for what medical professionals more precisely refer to as vertigo, presyncope, and so on. What we have here is a term without any established, generally-understood medical meaning which is variously defined in contradictory (though sometimes overlapping) ways. Attempting to combine these different definitions into a single broad concept does not result in a quality medical article, it results in a WP:SYNTH nightmare. If this actually were a single, broad concept we would see sources discussing that broad concept.

We could by all means create a transient loss of consciousness article (and we probably should) which would include syncope, epileptic seizures, and possibly loss of consciousness due to blunt force trauma to the head (some definitions of TLOC exclude loss consciousness that is traumatic in origin)—but that's quite a different article than the one under discussion. It could say something along the lines of Transient loss of consciousness (TLOC) is a brief period of unconsciousness which resolves spontaneously. It may be traumatic—as in a concussion—or non-traumatic in origin. Common causes of non-traumatic TLOC include syncope and epileptic seizures. If we want a medical perspective as to why someone ended up on the floor or ground, we can expand falling (accident)#Causes. I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to reworking this article entirely to be about TLOC and moving it to the title transient loss of consciousness, but that would functionally be the same as deleting this article and creating that one from scratch (except the edit history would be retained). TompaDompa (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why don't you do that - I think that would satisfy both keepers and deleters. Obviously "collapse" should redirect, if a new article is started. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a new neutral request for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.NikosGouliaros (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Syncope_(medicine) or delete per Hyperion35, I also doubt improvement to establish a stand-alone article, also per WP:NOTEVERYTHING CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or Redirect to Syncope_(medicine). Looking over the discussion and the article I think the arguments on both sides of either keeping it or deleting it are strong. That said, at this point I'm leaning more on the delete side or redirect. Although, if it is deleted it should only be a soft delete with a low bar recreation at some point when it can be better established as a notable topic worthy of it's own article. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Collapse, where improved disambiguation for the various medical topics can be done. It seems clear to me this is a vague term, and I don't see a broad concept article being feasible right now. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect' to Syncope (medicine). This is a really vague term but the best target for a lay person looking for an article about someone collapsing in a medical context would be syncope. Natureium (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Syncope is a very specific cause of collapse, but collapses have many other possible medical causes and therefore a redirect is not advisable or appropriate as collapse is the parent article and not the other way around. Collapse is a notable term in medical literature that’s widely used in medical RS. There are a multiplicity of sources available. I would suggest reaching out to WP:WikiProject Medicine to help develop the article further. AFD is not cleanup and it’s not prejudicial against notable stubs. Any arguments for deletion or redirect are not based in policy but are WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question The RS suggested so far all indicate that "collapse" is a non-specific sign that could be caused by a large number of different causes. A search of the ICD-10 does not show any single code for "collapse" but rather records many different codes that might involve some sort of collapse. Also, with all due respect, the nominating editor and I are both members of Wikiproject Medicine as well as being medical professionals. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I would welcome more participation from Wikiproject Medicine, however your suggestion that votes for delete are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is simply not true. Several votes, such as my own, have pointed out significant problems with having this article, specifically concern that as a non-specific sign, the article could turn into what is essentially clinical guidance on a differential diagnosis, in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. This isn't "I don't like it" so much as "here are the challenges, and I can't see how to solve them." Rather than dismissing those concerns, could you please elaborate on how this article would avoid those problems? And what RS are you considering using? Hyperion35 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have successfully changed my mind. Delete per Hyperion35. Oppose redirect. The disambiguation page for collapse should be all that is needed.4meter4 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagara (film)[edit]

Nagara (film) (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 film, fails WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass.

PROD removed because "It's a notable film released in PIFF Toronto 2015. IFFA .. Punjabi International film festival Toronto and International film festival Toronto.. I have already provided the times of india link..and I think I times of india is the one of the biggest news paper in the world and in india.. so please. If they posted an article means the film is notable.. please do not remove the film article"

However, the Times of India "article" isn't an article...it is a film database listing. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link of iffsatoronto & pifftoronto the article about all event of that day. https://www.iffsatoronto.com/the-4th-annual-iffsa-piff-toronto-announces-an-exciting-line-up-of-films-and-events/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Team Sukhjas (talk • contribs) 06:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a database profile page and a passing mention are not enough. No reviews in reliable sources, no significant awards, not apparently influential; clearly fails WP:NFILM. Not even a hint of significant coverage so comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Not a shred of notability. It's cases like this that make me wish that we had a speedy deletion A7 for films. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete passing mentions are not enough, fails WP:NFILM. Pilean (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable film. Kolma8 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. I wish we had a speedy deletion for films also Rogermx (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collabtive[edit]

Collabtive (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 of the article is and never was notable. The article with the same name and subject was already previously deleted in 2008 but then re-created without any sources asserting notability. I propose to delete it again. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Primary contributors to the article appear to be the program's developers, one of whom was the article's sole defender at the previous AfD in 2008. Provided references are a couple of reviews, but aside from these I found nothing in depth. --Finngall ^talk 16:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]