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. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Stockport County F.C. season[edit]

2011–12 Stockport County F.C. season (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:NSEASONS as the team was in the fifth tier and didn't do anything exceptional such as gaining promotion or winning a title that year. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @GiantSnowman: Over two hundred citations and you still say no evidence of notability! Are you sure there isn't a little ikkle bit of notability there!?? Anyway, I think I would be more an abstain vote, I am neither for or against it's deletion, as Redman pointed out, it fails NSEASONS, but GNG? It's all very routine, but it looks all correct, so... Govvy (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE / WP:NOTNEWS - transfer news and match reports and stats. Where is the significant coverage? GiantSnowman 15:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - where's the significant coverage of many team seasons in League One or League Two? Do you think, for example, that 2011–12 Burton Albion F.C. season got more in-depth coverage than the article being debated? Yet that one would get a "per NSEASONS" free pass because they were in League Two rather than the Conference....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and feel free to nominate for deletion if you believe it's not notable. GiantSnowman 11:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm neutral here. There is some non-routine coverage but I'm not sure there's enough. There is this lengthy Independent article and then some more local coverage about Sale Sharks moving out of their stadium and getting a loan from the council due to financial difficulties. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 12:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Too many of the 200 sources in the article are primary, but even when you remove them this clearly passes WP:GNG with every game played and transaction receiving media coverage, making WP:NSEASONS irrelevant. We need to stop deleting season articles that pass WP:GNG because of a bad policy. SportingFlyer T·C 12:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Looking the references over a good portion of them are primary, otherwise trivial, and the whole thing comes off like ref bombing. Also, the Review and Team sections are written in an extremely convoluted, newsy way. If you cut them out or otherwise clean them up to fit Wikipedia's article standards there wouldn't be much left to the article though. That said, I'm on the weak side because maybe someone could chop it down to the few good sources and get rid of the newsy cruft, if so I think the article is probably salvageable, but until that happens I'm leaning more on the delete side. Especially since this season is already mentioned in the main Stockport County F.C. article and there's no reason a little more about it couldn't be added. So this is really an un-needed, way overly detailed and referenced content fork. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There still hasn't been any argument that this detailed article fails WP:GNG (all of the games were covered by the BBC, the season news was covered by Manchester area papers) apart from the fact it's not from a league covered by WP:NSEASONS, which isn't exclusionary, especially since other AfDs from the same league are trending keep at the moment for this very reason. SportingFlyer T·C 10:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A well-written article with plenty of coverage and more than just a stat-dump (compare with the Burton Albion article, cited above). Easily meets WP:GNG and with a bit more work could become a GA or better. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well-sourced, and notable. Even if a team played badly, constitutes no WP article? Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The relist rationale is flawed because it assumes the season has to be discussed as a whole as opposed to being discussed consistently over the course of the event. The season clearly passes the "was consistently reliably covered by media" test. SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most sources are primary, but there are also multiple secondary sources. Thus, as also exposed by a user above, if to remove the primary sources, the article will continue to meet WP: GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lugnuts. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:40, 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 redirect to FC Chernihiv. Daniel (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Sinitsa[edit]

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

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

BLP of a Ukrainian businessman that seems highly promotional while the notability of the subject is uncertain. The material about FC Chernigiv can be covered in that article, and nothing in the rest of the content makes him look notable to me. Mccapra (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Chernihiv. Seems to be more about the team than the executive. Miaminsurance (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Before you get to the football bit you already have 12 cites, I feel there is enough to pass basic GNG, it all adds up. Govvy (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to FC Chernihiv - the only decent source in terms of coverage is this although (translated into English) it reads like a puff piece anyway. The rest of the references are fairly trivial in terms of coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 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 no consensus. It looks like without any detailed elaboration and source analysis, which is not going to happen as far as I can see, there will not be a consensus on whether the subject meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG (or WP:BASIC, which is also relevant here but has not been mentioned). There may be a lack of consideration of existing sources that are not in the article. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amrish Ranjan Pandey[edit]

Amrish Ranjan Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non notable young political figure who serves as the secretary of a political party. He has been never elected into any assembly. The sources provided also does not pass WP:GNG if we are considering about signifact coverage Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Amrish Ranjan Pandey is National Youth Leader of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashingpro (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN .— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Present amount of sources are not enough to meet WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per second point in WP:Politician, he has received coverage in newspapers as IYC media incharge. Can remove unreferenced sections from the article. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Content is irrelevant in determining notability; AfD is not clean up. Meets NPOL; head of a national organisation claiming 20 million members. Multiyear RS coverage. --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep :Head of the youth wing of a party and have coverage from multiple sources.Poppified ^talk 13:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES - we have deleted every other youth leader whose BLP comes up. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, the subject fails WP:NPOL, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability can be stablished on the provided sources. Kolma8 (talk) 12:51, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verena Katrien[edit]

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

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

Lacks WP:BIO, participated in a Model TV Show but that's all. WP:BEFORE gave me only some Yellow Press Mentions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Subject does not meet WP:NMODEL with no coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails NMODEL.-KH-1 (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nommed. I'm not sure what this person's alleged claim to fame is, but if it's modelling, that doesn't come even close to notability; the other things even less. Borderline speedy, IMO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NMODEL Devokewater 10:52, 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 Urdu. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Urdu Language[edit]

Names of Urdu Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't warrant its own Wikipedia article, too niche of a subject. Suggesting a merge with Urdu if the information is not already included or a total deletion. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 23:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Urdu. If there is no cited content not already at Urdu, then redirect. Cnilep (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Urdu As per nom. --Kemalcan (talk) 08:57, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grinnin' Records[edit]

Grinnin' Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Badly fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG; I couldn't find even one decent, independent source covering this record label. Aside from that, it also hasn't got even a slim chance of passing WP:NMUSIC either. The article creator edited Shaheen Jafargholi to show that he released an acoustic album through this label; I can't find a source to verify this in any case but, even if it is true, it still doesn't make this an important or notable record label. Certainly not one that should have an article in a general encyclopaedia.

Wikipedia is not a company directory. We should only cover topics that are clearly demonstrated to be notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, please. Not a single reliable, independent source as far as the eye can see. As an aside, I'm surprised WP:NMUSIC hasn't laid out specific notability guidelines for record labels. In light of that, I'd argue that WP:INHERITORG still applies: a label is made notable by coverage of itself, not necessarily the artists signed to it. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's as simple as I can't find any independent sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the fact that an article sourced only to the subject's own website has survived 6 years would be a sad comment on Wikipedia except that articles without any sources at all have survived 16 years, so this is nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater 10:53, 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Jensen (sociologist)[edit]

Eric Jensen (sociologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be promotional for subject. Article was created with text from their university profile, the citation for "known as" links to training they offer commercially, and substantial edits since notability tag added in 2016 have been adding more bibliographic entries, in some cases made from IPs whose only other edits have been adding references to the subject's work to other articles. Xnn (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find adequate citations on GS to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bartlett (politician)[edit]

Robert Bartlett (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Also does not have significant press coverage as a local elected politician, meaning he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mayors of cities with populations under 50,000 are rarely notable, especially when they are in the same country as a city with over 1 million with multiple other cities over 100,000 in the county.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Monrovia CA is not large enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on its mayors or city councillors just because it's technically possible to verify that they existed — to be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, he would have to either (a) have another, much stronger notability claim (e.g. having also been a state legislator at another time in his career) that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway, or (b) be referenceable to a depth and volume and range of reliable source coverage that marks him out as much, much more special than most other smalltown mayors or city councillors. But neither of those are on offer here, so just minimally verifying that he existed as a local officeholder isn't a magic bullet. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable --Devokewater 10:56, 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. There seems to be consensus that there is only 1 in-depth source (LA Times), but disagreement whether that satisfies GNG or not. GNG clearly specifying multiple sources, this appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel López (artist)[edit]

Manuel López (artist) (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 artist, fails WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is WP:TOOSOON. The LA Times article is excellent coverage. However, there seems to be basically no other coverage. I think they will be notable after three or four independent reviews are written.--- Possibly (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This Chicano artist from Boyle Heights is in the early stages of their career, yet they have received enough significant coverage (not just mentions) from the likes of the Los Angeles Times, Juxtapoz magazine, the Los Angeles Music Center and more, and their work has been included in two museum shows. He meets WP:BASIC. I've improved the article since the nomination. Netherzone (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC) I also wanted to mention that it was just created today by a student editor (who did a pretty good job) and I think we should support these educational initiatives. I'm hoping the editor will continue to improve the article as well. Netherzone (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of agree with Netherzone here, but perhaps we can update WP:NARTIST a bit an explain what an emerging artist is, what an established artist is and why an encyclopedia typically has entries on one but not the other. I'm sorry for the well intentioned folks who try to write articles about emerging artists only to find their efforts rewarded with an AfD, but perhaps try to focus on subjects with a significant body of work instead. Vexations (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: The Music Center piece contains no original reporting: it's an artist statement and a biography. The Juxtapoz piece does not mention him at all. Am I missing something? I appreciate the work you did on cleaning up the article. But the fact remains that only two of the ten sources is actual independent reporting, the LA Times and an independent blog (rafa.la) that does not look like a great source. The rest are announcements, boilerplate and trivial coverage.--- Possibly (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly, the Music Center piece is a documentary they produced/featured on him. That spotlight is pretty significant to my way of thinking. You are right about the Juxtapoz article - my goof, it covered the museum show, but he's not mentioned in the article. I really think we need to look at the work of an artist like López contextually within the framework of Chicano culture and the Chicano Movement within East L.A./Border Art - which does not fit neatly into "artworld" paradigms (shiny white walls in pristine spaces of New York, London, Paris, Dusseldorf - you know what I mean.) I remember having a somewhat similar conversation with you some years ago about the New Mexican-Chicana/Latina muralist Bernadette Vigil when her article was up for deletion. Neither artists are exactly "outsider" artists, but their work does exist outside of the big-bucks power dynamics of the mainstream "art world". López (or Vigil) do not fit nicely into low-brow art because the work is not ironic or campy, it's sincere. And they are recognized - not exactly as a bridge between these worlds, but for their contributions within their specific vernacular. I stand by my !vote that he meets WP:BASIC and that the article should be kept. Netherzone (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: You are one of my favourite editors on Wikipedia and in this rare instance, I do not agree with you. The Music Center piece is simply them lending their web platform to local artists-- can you point me to the original content? their page says as much ". More than 35 artists in total will be featured with a platform to express their views of Los Angeles that are relevant and reflective of the current time through music, dance and visual culture." The part of you argument abut him being Chicano and seeing his work contextually is just an instance of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The fact remains that there is only one in-depth independent source.--- Possibly (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly, and you are one of my favorite editors, and we disagree (respectfully of course!) on this. The Music Center series was curated - see the LA Downtown News citation just added. IMO the MC video is analogous to an article in this case - the citation states that he was a featured as a launch artist (launching the series). He's getting alot of attention for an emerging artist who doesn't fit neatly into art world boxes. He's not an outsider artist, he's an outlier -- so my argument is not about righting great wrongs as it is that outliers are pretty much ignored by art world power dynamics, I'm saying that we can try to examine his work as best as possible through the lens of his culture. I agree he's borderline N per WP guidelines, but I don't think its TOOSOON. I think retaining the article is a net positive for the encyclopedia and to delete it would be a loss. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Netherzone: The Music Center isnot independent then: the content was entirely written/created by the article subject. So that leaves one good source in the article. I'm not immune to your arguments here, but it's WP:TOOSOON. --- Possibly (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Netherzone. The Los Angeles Times article adds to the notability of this artist working, living, and chronicling the nature and events of East L.A. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does say multiple sources...--- Possibly (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moving the article to draft is a possible resolution here. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bbarmadillo, that is an idea, in the event that the AfD goes in the direction of delete. The draft could be moved back to the student editor's sandbox; I also volunteer to incubate it in my sandbox. May I ask why you nominated it for deletion less than an hour after creation by a good-faith student editor who was assigned this local artist? Should not student editors' efforts have a microscopic chance especially at this time when so many are struggling with non-in-person interfaces with their teachers? It was AfD'd about 35 minutes after the student created it, and they even stated in their edit summary that they were still "experimenting" with learning how to edit. What a buzz kill; another new editor bites the dust. I apologize for ranting. I stand by my !vote to retain the article, as I'm convinced that this emerging artist, with two museum shows, several group shows, an article in the LA times, a curated commission from the LA Music Center, and other attention meets WP:BASIC. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: come on, you know that WP:BASIC only mentions "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" and not all the other things you are giving as a reason to keep? --- Possibly (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly, Lest you think I’ve gone nuts or am worthy of a slap with a slice or two of baloney, I have already said it’s borderline notability and offered an alternative to deletion (draftify/userfy) if not kept. I realize I’m being uncharacteristically generous but I do feel the article has merit. A notability maintenance tag would have been a better option than AfD. These sources are not as strong as the LA Times article, yet they are all independent from the artist and each other and thus, to my mind count towards WP:BASIC. I agree that he does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST.
  Downtown Los Angeles News – This was and may still be a print publication since 1972 – it’s probably now online only but I don’t know for sure if they stopped the print version. More info about Downtown LA News here: [1] This source is fine and counts towards notability.
  The Eastsider – Yes it is a neighborhood news blog, and it has been named the best of neighborhood news blogs by L.A. Magazine and L.A. Weekly. More info about the Eastsider here: [2] I think this is fine can be counted toward notability.
  Boyle Heights Beat – Not for profit community news source. More info about Boyle Heights Beat here: [3] I think its independent and can count towards notability.
  RAFA.LA – a blog that does not contribute to notability as it has a sole writer info about the blog writer here:[4] However, I think the RAFA.LA citation that is currently in the article should stay in the article.
  Curate.la – It’s an event listing/press release, so does not contribute to notability, but it has some good info for the article. Netherzone (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last reply as I'm getting tired of pointing out the inaccuracies in claims: this supposed source does not even mention Lopez.--- Possibly (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly, That was info about the writer of the blog, sorry if that was not clear, I stated that it (the blog) does not contribute to notability. The link here was provided for info about the blog writer not Lopez. Netherzone (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Possibly. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to hear from User:Nstrathman and User:Ian (Wiki Ed) who are listed on Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University,_San_Bernardino/Art_History_Methodologies_(Spring) as Instructor and Wikipedia Expert, respectively. And of course from the creator of the article, User:Mylissa_I. Vexations (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vexations: on principle, I don't weigh in on the merits of student articles (I think there would be COI concerns if I were to). In this case, apparently the student moved their work to mainspace prematurely, and I'd have moved it back to their sandbox had I discovered it sooner, but since it's at AFD that isn't really an option. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ian (Wiki Ed), in that case, the outcome of this AfD, if it is not keep, ought to be at a minimum to userfy the article, per WP:ATD-I. Deletion is not acceptable to me. The student who should have the opportunity to continue to participate in the course, and deletion would prevent that. Vexations (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy is a good idea. I also did not realize this got AfD'd 35 minutes after it was created.--- Possibly (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per points made by Netherzone. The subject has had several exhibitions, including a solo gallery exhibition, plus the Los Angeles Times is significant coverage to show notability. Passes WP:BASIC and meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Netherzone's points are good ones, unfortunately they highlight the fact that this is most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, currently does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify. Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:SIGCOV. There is really only one excellent source, and ultimately this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I would be ok with moving this to draft space where the author can continue to build the article as new sources emerge. Once there is some more coverage to pass GNG, it can then be moved into main space.4meter4 (talk) 00:46, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. Mahendran[edit]

R. Mahendran (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:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. As for WP:GNG, The Hindu article is half about him, but beyond that, there's not much, an interview or two, announcements, his nice house.[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my views on deletion I do not think that this article should be deleted. He is a politician who is Vice President of an Indian political party— while he may not be as notable as other politicians, such as Sarah Palin (just an example), he is still important. HelenDegenerate (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NPOL. Subject of article is unelected and has not received substantive media coverage. --RaviC (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, but this article does not demonstrate any credible evidence of preexisting notability for other reasons independent of an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails per nomination Sauzer (talk) 10:57, 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) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noureldien Hussein[edit]

Noureldien Hussein (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 on a non-notable computer vision researcher; the sources do not establish WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources required to demonstrate notability. Links to the subject's papers and patents don't count. Also, for a CS academic, his citation count of 126 is decidedly unimpressive. Msnicki (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @DoubleGrazing: Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I would like to mention two reasons for the notability of this subject. (1) The subject has won two international awards, which are not trivial. These awards, as mentioned in the page, are (a) "first place in Microsoft Imagine Cup for Mobile Development" (PC Magazine 2012), and (b) "the 3rd place in Imagine Cup Grant" (TechCrunch 2012), see also "Imagine Cup Grant 2012" (Microsoft News 2012) (2) The second reason for notability is that the scientific contribution of the subject is demonstrated by a few U.S. published patents (scientific inventions), see "US20200302185A1" and "US10496885B2" -- PTraumatic (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PROF and doesn't appear to pass any other relevant criterion either. The book seems to be self-published, and more importantly unreviewed. Minor awards are (very) minor, and patents aren't grounds for notability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @DoubleGrazing:, @XOR'easter: Two independent reviewers voted for a delete. Then most likely they are right. Do you vote for moving it to the draft untill the subject becomes notable? I know that notability takes years. But let's move it to the draft. I for one, would not work on it anymore. I will keep working on ther subjects. What do you think? -- PTraumatic (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space is not for indefinite storage of pages on non-notable topics. There's no point in moving this article over there when it'll just be deleted under G13 in six months anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Scopus has 3 published works for a total citation count of 33, although there are at least 5 preprints on the arXiv which Scopus doesn't index cites for. Regardless, way too soon for this article. JoelleJay (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Computer vision is a very high citation subfield of computer science, itself a high-citation field, so the citations to his works are far from WP:PROF#C1. Having publications and patents is not by itself enough for notability, and the contest wins presented in the article appear too minor to count for much. That leaves book authorship, which is also inadequate. One book, by itself, is almost never enough for WP:AUTHOR, and we would in any case need multiple published reviews and I can find none. From what I can find on the web the book appears self-published but I suspect that technically it may not be; it looks like a Dutch Ph.D. dissertation and those are usually printed in small batches by publishers specialized to that purpose. In any case the publication status is less important than the lack of multiple reviews for multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 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 and redirect to Team Hawaii. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Soccer Team[edit]

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

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

This is far WP:TOOSOON. The team hasn't ever played, don't even have a uniform and have virtually no meaningful coverage. VAXIDICAE💉 19:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 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)} 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Team Hawaii My immediate thought when I saw this in the deletion sorting was the old NASL team, which would almost certainly be more notable and seems like an appropriate target. Otherwise agree that the article is WP:TOOSOON. Jay eyem (talk) 20:57, 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. No evidence provided that the BPL is fully-professional, hence I find the 'delete' arguments more persuasive. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Sheikh Bablu[edit]

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

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

I can't find any evidence to suggest that he meets our notability criteria. He has never played in a league listed at WP:FPL so does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL; he also has not played in an international fixture (being called up is not sufficient on its own). National Football Teams does not list him at all.

Searching his name "মোহাম্মদ শেখ বাবলু" only seems to bring up one source, which is just a routine announcement anyway. No evidence that WP:GNG is met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 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)} 18:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak remove Bangladesh Premier League doesn't meet WP:NOTFPL and seems it fails also WP:GNG, although Bengali wiki says he is a top player. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Bangladesh Premier League is the top-tier professional football league of Bangladesh. It is run by the Professional Football League Committee of Bangladesh Football Federation. As Mohamed Sheikh Bablu is a professional footballer, played for Bangladesh Police FC in Bangladesh Premier League, so I think it satisfies the second point of WP:NFOOTBALL. That's why I will suggest you guys to keep this article. Still, if you guys think it fails in WP:NFOOTBALL, then you guys can delete this. Thanks. – Waraka Saki (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to show that the league is fully professional? It has been raised before at WT:FPL but no sources have ever been presented to show this and there has never been consensus in favour of adding it. The last discussion was a while ago, though, so if you do have sources, please start a new discussion at WT:FPL. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails our already ludicrously broad inclusion criteria for footballers. We are close enough to being footballpedia just with those guidelines, we do not need to head closer to being it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- He played in the Bangladeshi top tier league which is a professional football league. For me, it passes NFOOTBALL. Diptadg17 (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide sources for this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Kovács (footballer, born 2000)[edit]

Péter Kovács (footballer, born 2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Soccerway and World Football (both referenced in the article) have no appearances listed that would qualify him under WP:NFOOTBALL. This is supported by HLSZ and MLSZ, who both keep exhaustive records of such things.

A WP:BEFORE search was tricky as Kovács Péter is a ludicrously common name in Hungary (for an illustration of this, see how many are registered on MLSZ). In my searches, I can only find passing mentions in match reports like this so I believe that WP:GNG is not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 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)} 17:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, not enough for both GNG and NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment:: Péter Kovács has played for Hungary's national youth teams, with Hungary under-19 Kovács has played in 2019 UEFA European Under-19 Championship qualification. Recently he has been called up in Hungary under-21 for 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship. On other hand, Kovács signed his professional football contract with Debreceni VSC in 2017–18 season (when Debreceni VSC was a team of Nemzeti Bajnokság I, Hungary's tier 1 professional football league). I hope you guys will make a decision with keeping all these in consideration. Thanks. – Waraka Saki (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the youth team appearances and I was aware that he was on the bench once for Debrecen but never played. Signing a contract isn't enough for WP:NFOOTBALL. There is strong consensus that playing in senior international fixtures will pass the guideline and justify an article but players with only youth appearances that don't meet WP:GNG are almost always deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both GNG and football notability guidelines are not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 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) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nirav Shah (politician)[edit]

Nirav Shah (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)

A difficult AFD. Shah is Mayor of the city but that doesn't qualify WP:POLITICIAN. Most of the coverage seems sensationalism and hence fails WP:GNG. The article fails WP:NPOV. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Might be notable: Surat is a major city, and it would be surprising if Shah doesn't pass WP:BIO. But in its current state, the article looks like a whitewashed promo piece, and TNT may be a good idea. Need to see if a neutral version exists to revert to. JavaHurricane 03:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nuked. JavaHurricane 03:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 03:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the key is good sourcing. Maybe getting rid of this article will convince people to stop giving default passes to undersourced leaders of other major cities. For the record Surat has over 6 million people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Does anyone really believe that an article about the verified deputy mayor of a city with a population of over 6 million anywhere in the western world would be deleted? We give an automatic notability pass to the many legislators of US states with a lower population, let alone their deputy leaders. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There's enough coverage regarding the lockdown incident here to pass WP:BASIC imo. As Shah is a major city's deputy mayor, WP:1E is passed too. JavaHurricane 01:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The subject is notable and has recieved enough coverage. He has been also elected as the mayor of a major Indian city.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?}
• Keep: As a creator of the page. The subject is very much notable as he was the deputy mayor of a major city of Gujarat which is ranked 2nd cleanliest city of India. --Sankoswal (talk) 15:21, 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lachante Paul[edit]

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

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

Paul's 17 minutes against Lionesses in the cup don't count towards WP:NFOOTBALL nor do any of the Leicester appearances. Nothing logged for national team either.

She gets routine coverage from Leicester's own website and very occasional passing mentions elsewhere. I can't see any WP:SIGCOV from any sources independent from Paul so I can't see how this article meets WP:GNG, sorry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 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)} 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, not enough for both GNG and NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not at this time meet GNG. He is 18 so that could change, but we wait until it does to create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This my first created article on wikipedia, so I apologise for the unfamiliarity with all the rules. After reading the policies the article did not meet, I would understand if the article was deleted. However, this is a young, promising, female footballer who has played well over the last season and a half. Lachante Paul's team, Leicester City Women, are on the brink of promotion which would see them enter a professional league. If she enters a professional leauge, which appears to be imminent, coverage will increase and her name will potentially be named more frequently, depending on her performances. I also believe the four policies listed under 'when to use the deletion process ^[1] are met within the article. ^{[2] [3]} Markjbodey (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As John Pack Lambert says above, it's probably best to wait until Paul meets a Wikipedia guideline before recreating. If Leicester do get promoted and if Paul does play in the WSL next season, then this can definitely be created. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, see WP:CRYSTAL. We can't absolutely guarantee that Paul will debut in the WSL next season and it's not our place to make such predictions in an encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I am not claiming Wikipedia to be a crystal ball, at no point in the article have I predicted anything. Whether or not she does make her debut in the WSL, her performances during the 2019/20 season, as well as this season (which have not been added to the wikipedia page due to the frequent changes) are certainly more than just notable. This page was created for future expansion as her career progresses, and the article meets all of the other criteria necessary. We shouldn't be so quick to delete articles covering women in football as it suggests their achievements aren't as significant as their male counterparts. In writing this article, my aim was to expand our knowledge of women footballers so that people who are interested can learn more. One article will not change this, but keeping these pages up is certainly a good starting point. Markjbodey (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the signficant coverage of her? Taking the coverage from her own club Leicester out of the equation, there's nothing really more than a couple of transfer announcements and some passing mentions in match reports. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, female footballers can be notable even if playing outside of professional leagues but they need to have significant in-depth coverage from independent sources. For examples, see Sammie Wood and Sara Mérida. I'm not seeing that level of coverage for Paul. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 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 speedy delete (G11, G12). MER-C 15:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders of Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence Group[edit]

Leaders of Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Organization with very little coverage. Does not meet GNG, and certainly not NCORP. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding GNG: Mention of Leaders of Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence is Reference 1 found at Máté Hidvégi, a page that predates it. -BigDataOntologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDataOntologist (talk • contribs) 03:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kingston[edit]

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

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

No indication or evidence of notability. The sources used do not justify a stand alone article. I see no change in notability since the last deletion discussion. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He makes nice photos but does not meet our criteria for WP:NARTIST nor WPGNG inclusion in the encyclopedia. No record of exhibitions, museum collections, significant awards, etc. Was deleted in 2018, and there has not been much change since then. Netherzone (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, still does not meet WP:NARTIST, nothing has changed since previous afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bergman[edit]

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

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

Supposed brochure article for BLP, for own company. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ACADEMIC scope_creep^Talk 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, e.g. USA Today 2019, People Magazine May 2019, People Magazine Feb 2019, New York Times 2020, Windy City Times 2019, LA Parent 2019, HuffPost 2015. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Beccaynr. Some of those sources are better than others, but some are quite good. I don't see how this article is a brochure; it seems pretty neutral and matter-of-fact. Could take out the "number of surrogacies", though, as that seems to be the only promotional aspect. -2pou (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Surely when a magazine with the reach of People (whether print or digital) writes a profile about someone, that constitutes significant coverage? Add to that the sources that Beccaynr has highlighted. The tone of the article seems fine, so I'm not seeing how it's a 'brochure article'. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:20, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Brandenburg[edit]

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

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

Brochure article for supposed BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 14:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable and with few reliable citationsMiaminsurance (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable individual in the design industry. Just because someone has a job does not mean they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find sources to make a case through any current criteria. PK650 (talk) 22:17, 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 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) 23:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brijan Tours[edit]

Brijan Tours (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 our main notability guidelines for organisations and companies, WP:NCORP (not WP:GNG).

There are two independent references in this article, ref 4 (Hampshire Chronicle) and ref 5 (Daily Echo).

Reference 4 is trivial coverage as described in NCORP - "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business"

Reference 5 is also trivial - "of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance"

Both sources also fail WP:AUD for being only of local reach. I could not find sources that meet the NCORP requirements from a WP:BEFORE search. SK2242 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:29, 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. Consensus that OBE is not automatically conferring notability, and therefore I find the SIGCOV arguments persuasive. References helpfully provided by Necrothesp to identify why he received the OBE, will themselves not qualify as SIGCOV. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest James Scott[edit]

Ernest James Scott (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. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, presumed notable under WP:ANYBIO, as the recipient of a significant award or honour, namely an OBE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't checked whether there's any other reason for notability, but being an OBE is certainly not one, per countless previous AfD discussions. He would need to be at least a CBE before WP:ANYBIO could come into play. (And, I am enough of a pedant to point out, one doesn't receive an OBE, but becomes one.) Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not finding SIGCOV, OBE doesn't seem notable enough. Zawed (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, primary sources only. An OBE isn't a significant award or honour. A CBE might qualify, but definitely not an OBE. They are a dime a dozen, as are MCs. And one is appointed to the Order. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. An OBE is not sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, although it certainly contributes to notability. A CBE would be sufficient, as they're much rarer and we have always held them to be sufficient. However, you would have thought that someone appointed OBE for services to a sport would have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. A purely local sports figure would usually only qualify for an MBE, which suggests he was heavily involved in water polo nationally. I wonder who he was? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here's the answer. He was an international water polo referee who refereed at the 1952 Olympics. He was president of the Amateur Swimming Association in 1967/68[6] and a member of the International Water Polo Board.[7] The London Water Polo League Referee's Cup is named after him.[8] -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Road[edit]

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

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "Adding more information and references, Ann Road is a major thoroughfare in the Las Vegas Valley with multiple places in its namesake along it." However, I can't find enough in-depth coverage of the street itself to pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 03:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sourcing provided is routine coverage about construction projects, and I cannot find anything else to show that WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:48, 22 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas da Silva Cruz[edit]

Douglas da Silva Cruz (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:NFOOTBALL. The player's team plays in Série D which is not included in the list of fully professional leagues. It also fails WP:GNG. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 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)} 14:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our ludicously broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Let me know if I've got that wrong as the Brazilian system can be confusing... GiantSnowman 18:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: It includes up to Série C. Série D is out. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above, not enough for both GNG and NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Did anyone else notice that a whole bunch of pages started by the creator of this one are recreations of mass-deleted pages from the long-term sock? --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article belongs to a professional player who has already played in professional leagues, and this has been confirmed in the attached sources ^[4][5].Lilianasri (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the bio plays for Cabofriense wich competes in Série D, the fourth tier of the Brazilian football league system. Only Sèrie C (third tier) and above are included in the list of fully professional leagues, so the player does not meet the criteria for inclusion of WP:NFOOTBALL. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the nominator is correct, this does not meet any of our guidelines. I couldn't find any significant coverage of this player. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 22 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youness Lacchab[edit]

Youness Lacchab (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 NFOOTBALL having only played in the Spanish 3rd and 4th tiers, no other indication of GNG being satisfied JW 1961 Talk 11:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 11:56, 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)} 12:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Present sources doen't passes WP:GNG and his career has yet to show to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Grailcombs (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article concerns a professional player who played in almeria and Murcia clubs and the required resources were added and he has already played in professional leagues such as Tercera División and Segunda División B Lilianasri (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there is some coverage in the local Murcia paper La Verdad but I don't think that it's enough Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GL Bajaj Institute of Technology and Management[edit]

GL Bajaj Institute of Technology and Management (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 satisfy WP:schooloutcomes or WP:nschool or wp:org. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacking WP:RS, failing WP:NSCHOOL. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university. DMySon 18:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article clearly lacks reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranhita (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources in the article are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, more database and directory style listings. The keep votes above do not list any sources to check, and the reasons listed are opinions not supported by guidelines. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT.  // Timothy :: talk  12:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source eval table

Source	Evaluation
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ent…	404 page to the events and entertainment section of a newspaper. From the URL the article was titled something like "students-get-emotional-at-the-convocation-ceremony" Very doubtful this is SIGCOV about the subject, but it fails V so nothing here
www.Shiksha.com. "G.L. Bajaj Institut…	Database style page
"Top Engineering Colleges in Greater…	Link to promo page on school website
"Gl Bajaj Institute Of Technology And…	Search page results with no info or articles about school. Not SIGCOV
"Gl Bajaj Institute Of Technology And…	Search page results with no info or articles about school. Not SIGCOV
"G L Bajaj Institute of Technology an…	Database style page

• Delete private colleges are treated no differently then any other private organization when it comes to the notability guidelines, and this college clearly fails them due to the lackluster state of the sources. So, deleting the article is the correct, policy based thing to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 07:01, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskar Educational Group[edit]

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

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

Except for the institute website, the rest of the sources are not WP:RS. Does not satisfy WP:schooloutcomes or WP:nschool or wp:org. Vikram Vincent 13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schooloutcomes should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. Vikram Vincent 11:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Here is my argument for similar institutions. DMySon 18:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor is saying WP:other stuff exists Vikram Vincent 07:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 07:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post clean up it does not pass WP:HEY Vikram Vincent 08:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Could not find any sources to satisfy GNG. Also fails WP:NSCHOOLS. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG. Editors who haven't read SCHOOLOUTCOMES in awhile, will be surprised to see that the language of that policy changed after an RFC in 2017.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Management & Technology[edit]

National Institute of Management & Technology (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 satisfy WP:schooloutcomes or WP:nschool or wp:org. Most of the links in the references are either deadlinks or primary sources. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university. Here is my argument for similar institutions. DMySon 18:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wp:other stuff exists ain't valid in an AFD. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: written like an advertisement, would require TNT to clean up if sources could be found to establish notability. Sources in the article are collection of database style directory entries, lists, surveys, promos, content from school websites. Its one of the most impressive lists of sources that do not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth in any article I've seen. The sources also reflect that this is an advertisement, not an encyclopedic article. I did a BEFORE and didn't find anything that meets SIGCOV; given the refs in the article, I don't think the author would have missed an opportunity to have an actual source with SIGCOV, so I don't believe there are any. If I missed something, please let me know, I'll be happy to change my mind if someone shows SIGCOV, but even if sources exist there is still the actual article which needs TNT to change it from an advert to an article. The above keep votes do not provide sources and are personal opinions unsupported by guidelines, which I believe these have been spammed indiscriminately to a variety of noms without actually looking at the articles.  // Timothy :: talk  13:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I totally agree with everything said by TimothyBlue in relation to the article. It's written like an advertisement, the sourcing is horrible, it would take a fundamental rewrite based on sources that likely don't exist to meet Wikipedia's quality/notability standards, and the people who voted keep have been spamming the same exact messages everywhere without considering the quality of the articles or basing their "votes" on actual policy. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did a clean up of the page and yet it does not pass WP:HEY. Vikram Vincent 08:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG. Editors who haven't read SCHOOLOUTCOMES in awhile, will be surprised to see that the language of that policy changed after an RFC in 2017.4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Management Studies, Ghaziabad[edit]

Institute of Management Studies, Ghaziabad (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 satisfy WP:schooloutcomes or WP:nschool or wp:org. WP:RS absent. Vikram Vincent 13:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't anything about this school that isn't trivial or written like a non-neutral advertisement. So the article clearly fails WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The accreditation thing aside, from the article I got the impression that it it's a private educational institution. As far as I'm aware private educational institutions have higher standards to follow for them be notable compared to public ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schooloutcomes should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. Vikram Vincent 11:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the old management institutes in India. Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Here is my argument for similar institutions. DMySon 18:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment unless someone can come with with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 06:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG. Editors who haven't read SCHOOLOUTCOMES in awhile, will be surprised to see that the language of that policy changed after an RFC in 2017.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vignana Jyothi Institute of Management[edit]

Vignana Jyothi Institute of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No WP:RS to establish notability. Does not satisfy WP:schooloutcomes or WP:nschool or wp:org. Vikram Vincent 13:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Single source in article is to a 404 page; from the url it is a WordPress blog and the page is a PDF listing of schools. Very doubtful this is SIGCOV and it cannot be verified in anycase. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, all directory style database listings and nothing that supports most of the article's content, so it is probably OR. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. Since it is almost all OR unsupported by sources, nothing to merge, but no objection to a redirect if there is support for it.  // Timothy :: talk  10:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bajaj Institute of Technology Wardha[edit]

Bajaj Institute of Technology Wardha (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 satisfy WP:schooloutcomes or WP:nschool or wp:org. The references are not WP:RS. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also a case of WP:TOOSOON. Vikram Vincent 17:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacking WP:RS, failing WP:NSCHOOL. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep– I have added few more sources that I found online. I remember reading about this institute several times in newspapers. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says we should consider the fact that offline news may exist before proposing for deletion.Aishaa14 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  general note: Aishaa14 is the creator of the article. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states educational institutes have to pass either general notability criteria, or notability guidelines for organisations. The subject fails both. All the sources provided, including recently, are listings/yellow pages/press releases. They do not establish notability. The keep arguement above states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES says we should consider the fact that offline news may exist before proposing for deletion. Actually, SCHOOLOUTCOMES states References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD. It talks about references like books, journals, and similar stuff. Even if we include news, according to the article, [the college] afer getting approvals from AICTE in 2017-18, academic sessions were started. Even if it was covered in news, it wouldnt be difficult to find these news online. SCHOOLOUTCOMES also says we should avoid bringing up SCHOOLOUTCOMES during AfD. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's a school. Not every school deserves a Wikipedia page, and there is nothing notable about this one. See WP:NSCHOOL. Ira Leviton (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable and fails GNG. Agree with Ira Leviton Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 01:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to meeting our minimum guidelines for having an article on anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes, which is merely a reflection of existing consensus as to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university. This is no worse than the many hundred similar articles on colleges in India and elsewhere ( I know this is a very weak argument---what we ought to do is deal with the other similar articles also, but I see no point in singling this one out). DMySon 17:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This argument sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Vikram Vincent 19:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSCHOOL. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 15:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete prior consensus and the guidelines are pretty clear that private schools have to follow the same notability guidelines as any other type of organization and therefore do not get a special pass from things like WP:NORG. Which, as a private organization, this college clearly fails. Otherwise, the people who think the article should be kept are free to provide WP:THREE usable, in-depth, independent sources and I will be happy to change my vote to keep. In the meantime though, I haven't found any and no one has bothered to provide them. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and fails criteria 3 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES because the article fails WP:ORG. Editors who haven't read SCHOOLOUTCOMES in awhile, will be surprised to see that the language of that policy changed after an RFC in 2017.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. After the rubbish was removed from the article it is essentially a WP:1S. Fails WP:ORG. Kolma8 (talk) 15:02, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dalia seera[edit]

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

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

This article was prodded after an objection to my merge proposal on the talk page, citing concerns about notability. Further research showed the objection was well-founded, but it was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson without explanation. I found few reliable sources, but best as I can tell, the term appears to be a composite of two languages: Marathi (sheera) and Hindi (Dalia). Looks like editorial bungling. "Sheera" is a halva made with suji/rava (semolina), and "lapsi" is a type of porridge made with dalia (bulgur). There are no reliable sources for the construction "Dalia sheera". Spudlace (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spudlace (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This is sheera made with cracked wheat instead of semolina. In other words, it's a wholemeal form of the dish. This is best dealt with by merger rather than deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. The best target seems to be Suji ka Halwa rather than halva but maybe that should be merged too – it's a large family of variations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. That halva can be made without water is a defining feature of the dish, which originated in the desert. Lapsi is a whole grain. Unlike most porridges, lapsi is toasted in ghee before adding water, but it is cooked by the process of absorbing water. It is somewhere between a halva and a porridge, but substantially different from halva. If we look to reliable sources, we would find that there is no term "Dalia Seera" in use, outside a handful of non-notable food blogs - even leaving a redirect would be inappropriate. This should not have been deprodded. Spudlace (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I should have pinged @Knightoften: as a participant to the merge discussion. Correcting that oversight. Spudlace (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Halva. It can be summarized in one paragraph. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treating this as a merge propposal is problematic because concerns were raised under the existing merge proposal (still open on the talk page) about the verifiability notability of the content under discussion. There is opposition to the merge proposal on the talk page it should not be split to an alternate merge proposal at AfD where the knowledgeable editors who watch halvah are not aware of a discussion taking place. Spudlace (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge and Agree to Deletion Spudlace, Thank you for pinging me, otherwise I would have been unaware of this discussion. As stated by Spudlace, there is a discussion on the Halva talk page. I oppose merging on grounds of notability and lack of citation. That is my only problem with it; if the article can be brought up to standard then it can be merged. Frankly, I don't really know too much about Dalia seera myself, this is going off the original article. Knightoften (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article does not have SIGCOV, its basically trivia and there is nothing properly sourced to merge. Strong objection to merging unsourced content. If someone wishes to research this and add properly sourced information to another article, they certainly can, but there is nothing here to merge and the merge proposal was objected to previously.  // Timothy :: talk  00:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Oppose Merge. Fails WP:SIGCOV. We can let the editors hash out where and how to address dalia seera at the ongoing talk page discussion at Talk:Halva. At this point, a merge appears to not be the best option due to poor referencing.4meter4 (talk) 01:09, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Reina[edit]

Darwin Reina (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/director, there is nothing in the way of any meaningful coverage VAXIDICAE💉 11:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. Found no reliable sources that shows significant coverage that demonstrates notability. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:08, 22 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. Two relists through and no evidence has been presented to support the statements in this discussion that the page demonstrates notability. I therefore find the delete !votes the most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Sherelh'yqo[edit]

House of Sherelh'yqo (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 about a family. No evidence of notability. One possibly notable member of the family. Sources in the article are a dead link and an article that doesn't mention the family. Nothing found that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I could find no sources discussing the family/house in depth. I could be failing to find because of poor romanisation of the name/searching in English, although I doubt it given that I found very little at all. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging @Adigabrek: who might know more about this. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 19:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Circassian "houses" are one of the, if not the, most important parts of the society and history of the Circassians, in Caucasus or diaspora alike. These "houses", also called "clans", sometimes as large as hundreds of people scattered all around the world. Mostly, they ruled land in Circassia. A lot of land. The house of Ṩərəl'ıqo^{[Note 1]} is a noble house probably known by all Circassians, and I know they've produced a lot of people. Overall I think most Circassian "houses" are noteworthy, especially ones such as this. But I doubt there will be any sources about things such as this in English, just like most things Circassian, as most sources about Circassians are in Russian, and we English speakers only have access to translated works, if any. Also keep in mind there is no standart romanisation of the Circassian language, and everybody just uses what they like, making it even harder to find what you're looking for. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 07:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adigabrek, Do you have any English or Russian sources to back up your statements above? What you're arguing for seems to fails WP:V.  // Timothy :: talk  22:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The family is a ruling noble house of the Shapsug princedom - that is noteworthy. While the first source of the article may lead to a now-dead link, the source itself is still written out. The other source mentioned above does mention the family, if section 3 of the article in question is viewed, navigated to below the linked page. Also, as our fellow Wikipedia member above has mentioned, most of the sources about Circassians are either completely in Russian and/or only on paper documents. It is like an iron curtain of literature and we work hard to make them available to English-speaking readers worldwide. -Yahya Kuadzhe — Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Yahya Kuadzhe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
• Comment Neither of the two Keep votes above cite any sources supporting their claims of notability. The sources added to the article are not about the family (they mention the name), so they are not SIGCOV addressing the subject (the family) directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  00:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable Circassian royal family per above. Has members like Kizbech Tuguzhuqo. Ambrosiawater (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Ambrosiawater do you have any sources to support the claim that this is a notable family, notabilty is not inherited from individuals. So far no one has been able to provide any sources, let alone sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  22:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LIST and WP:MILL - there's a single notable member of this family, which was never ruler of a sovereign country. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: an indiscriminate list of non-notable individuals—no indication they pass WP:ANYBIO—and which likewise fails to assert, let alone comprehensively demonstrate, collective notability. I note that at least two out of the three keep !votes above are from relatively inexperienced editors, and while of course their voice is as welcome as anyone's in these discussions, the lack of a policey-basis to their vague assertions should be duly weighed by the closing admin. ——Serial 12:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - absolutely no evidence has been presented that shows that the family itself is a notable topic. Whether an individual member or two are notable is irrelevant. We need sources showing coverage of the family for us to have an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PharmaRusical[edit]

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

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

Stub that is unlikely to pass WP:NEPISODE and WP:GNG. There is little information that goes beyond a synopsis of the episode. It has sat as a stub for several months. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. I wish Lil-unique1 had expressed concerns on the article's talk page or at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race before nominating for deletion. I believe there's enough sufficient secondary coverage to flesh out this entry and vote to keep for further expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not create articles on the "expectation of notability" or "future notability when someone gets around to expanding it". The mainspace is not for drafts or partially complete articles. That's what sandboxes and the user space is for. We do not need articles for the sale of articles. Additionally, its not just about the lack of detail on the page, page views show it is unlikely that readers will find/come to the page. They're much more likely to find the information on the parent season's page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main space is not for partially complete articles? Are you kidding? Wikipedia is full of incomplete articles. Nor do page views speak to notability. Next time try assessing secondary coverage WP:BEFORE nominating. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for keeping something. We have notability rules for a reason - to establish what is factual and warrants an individual article. In this case, the article serves no purpose in its current format as it duplicates what is already at the parent season's page. I search news sources and felt what was available still would not make the topic eligible for its own page per WP:NEPISODE. Page views are a good indication of whether a sub-topic is worthy of existing as a separate page or not. Yes low or high views do not necessarily indicate whether or not something is notable but they provide a good indication for how audiences are accessing content about a particular topic. That's the bit I'm most interested in - making it as easy as possible for casual viewers to find the information. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sitting as a stub is not a valid deletion reason; please review WP:IMPATIENT. As for notability, the subject has coverage currently used on the page from Billboard, A.V. Club, Vulture, and Metro Weekly. Coverage not used on the article in its current form includes In Magazine here; Wussy Mag here; Pajiba here; and others. --Kbabej (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Multiple in-depth sources clearly establishes GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:53, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles G. Ridgeley[edit]

Charles G. Ridgeley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparently a US Navy Captain in the early 1800s with no significant awards or decorations. Page has been unreferenced since 2009 and while there are a few sources I don't believe they amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Comment I think captains count as 'field grade officers' rather than 'flag/general officers'. If so, WP:OUTCOMES state that field grade officers must demonstrate notability independent of their military rank. If captains are flag/general officers, then they are notable in their own right. But, assuming that my intuition is right that the subject is a field grade officer, I don't think the subject meets general notability. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag/general officers have no inherent notability, they must satisfy WP:GNG. 11:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bibliopole5795: I found a source that describes the subject as a flag officer, for what it's worth. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this unsourced article has existed for over 16 years. Holders of the office of captain are not default notable, and even if they were we would need a reliable source to at least verrify what is said.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It turned up in my search that the subject had sort of received the Congressional Gold Medal (which would qualify normal recipients as notable under WP:ANYBIO#1). A 1923 book plainly said that Ridgeley received it.^[6] However, the 1805 Congress citation had the medal presented to Commodore Edward Preble, and through him to the officers, petty officers, seamen and marines attached to the squadron under his command^[7] and presented swords to each of the commissioned officers and Midshipmen who had distinguished themselves in the several attacks.^[8] Ridgeley was a recipient of the medal in an indirect sense, but probably not directly enough for ANYBIO#1.
  However, if Flag officers, general officers and their service equivalents (e.g., Air officers) are generally considered notable (common AfD outcomes, pointed out by Bibliopole5795), it is worth noting that he was explicitly described as Flag Officer Charles G. Ridgeley.^[6]
  I found a few other minor mentions in reliable sources (e.g. Small Boats and Daring Men: Maritime Raiding, Irregular Warfare, and the Early American Navy, Appendix M - Inventory of the Naval Records Collection of the Office of Naval Records and Library, Freedom's Mercenaries: Southern South America and A History of the United States Navy from 1775 to 1901) that describe parts of his career. The first source, for instance, describes his service (under the spelling "Ridgely") under Preble at the Second Battle of Tripoli Harbor (which led to the Congressional Gold Medal). They aren't substantial enough for WP:GNG though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More tangential, but his name appears to have been originally "Charles Ridgely Goodwin" and was legally changed to "Charles Goodwin Ridgely" at the behest of his uncle Charles Ridgely III, who did the same to another nephew in Charles Carnan Ridgely.^[9][10][11] There are lots of small biographical details out there. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ridgely was also the Commandant of the Brooklyn Navy Yard from 1833 to 1839.^[12][13][14] There may be a case for notability here, with the indirect Congressional Gold Medal, being a flag officer, and being commander of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is a biography in The Biographical Dictionary of America (wikisource) that mentions all of the above: his service under Preble in the First Barbary War, receipt of a sword (attached to the Congressional Gold Medal), service as a flag officer in the West Indies, service as Commandant of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and service as a flag officer in Brazil.^[15][16] Besides my previous comment about WP:ANYBIO#1 and WP:OUTCOMES#Military, that is also a case for notability under ANYBIO#3. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found significant coverage (9 full paragraphs) on Ridgeley here: Johnson, Robert Erwin (1963). "Chapter 3: From Ship to Squadron". Thence round Cape Horn. United States Naval Institute. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]