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) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madison County Corridors[edit]

Madison County Corridors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No significant coverage, the only source included is a feasibility study (primary source), and from what I can tell this hasn't gone anywhere in the past few years. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet GNG and since its just a study, NGEO doesn't apply.  // Timothy :: talk  20:14, 10 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) 23:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Bowen (thinktank director)[edit]

Sandra Bowen (thinktank director) (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 primarily a promotional article. Very few sources are available online. I could find no immediate hits on news searches. The article was mainly written by compensated and disclosed editors. Sauzer (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sauzer (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sauzer (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sauzer (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Sauzer (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. I told her what she needed to do for it to not get flagged for deletion, but she refused to provide me with anything that fit under WP:RS, and eventually canned me because I was telling her what she hired me to tell her but didn't want to hear and accused me of being a pariah to Wikipedia admins.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we need to put the kabbosh on people paying their way to Wikipedia inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The converge are not from any notable media, hence it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also can't find much in Google news. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The Times article is not about her primarily. The other sources are not secondary, or are not independent. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 10 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. Perhaps further discussion about the general notability/criteria for these sorts of bibliographies is warranted, but insofar as current policy permits them, there appears to be consensus that this one is okay to retain. No prejudice against this conversation continuing elsewhere. Go Phightins! 23:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Gibraltar[edit]

Bibliography of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Currently on hiatus from AfD, but got a few of those 'deprod per WP:DEPROD' summaries in my watchlist. Article is a borderline case at absolute best for WP:LISTN/WP:LISTPURP, presenting a heterogeneous list of books on a broad topic with little indication of use to readers. It has classic WP:SYNTH issues built into the process and which can't be avoided or edited out of. (Page creator has chosen not to be notified for AfDs.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The talk of WP:SYNTH is nonsense. The territory of Gibraltar is well-defined and rich in history and so there are numerous books and documents about it. It is easy to find multiple published bibliographies for this place and this book has pages of them including A Gibraltar Bibliography; An introduction to the documents relating to the international status of Gibraltar, 1704 - 1934; A bibliography of Gibraltar 1939-1945; Gibraltar: bibliography - local and military history up to 28 February 1978; &c. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN easily while the purpose of the list is obvious and respectable. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Existence of specialized bibliographies with specific themes (and certainly annotations as well!) is no basis for this bibliography that's just random titles of books on the broader topic. Wikipedia is not just a list of titles of unrelated publications on history, travel, and "Military Anecdotes" on a wide topic with no inclusion criteria. Unclear what makes this an encyclopedic compilation any more than typing "Gibraltar" into your library's catalogue or Google Books, or what the title of a handbook to visiting Spain being next to the title of a book on fortifications is supposed to provide readers. History_of_Gibraltar#References provides just as useful of a list of books on the territory. Reywas92^Talk 01:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting similarities, I found this page is just a copy-and-paste of that references section when the page was created in 2013: [1]. What the hell is the point of this???? Speedy delete as not a freaking article, just pointless duplication. Reywas92^Talk 01:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have similar bibliographies for most parts of the world – see Category:Bibliographies of countries or regions. There's no good reason to omit this one, especially as it is so clearly notable. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OSE, many of those articles pages were created by the same person and are likewise useless. There's no reason to keep this when when it's so clearly arbitrary and of no use and a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE. Reywas92^Talk 02:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I noted this in response to your similar comment in the other pending bibliography AFD, but just so it's here in this discussion as well: OSE states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." postdlf (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Our bibliography articles are often the labor of love for one person or otherwise completely neglected. Still, they are considered a valid form of list (although there's a good question of whether they belong in projectspace or mainspace). There is a good point about scope here, though. What is the inclusion criteria? What sort of inclusion criteria would be reasonable? Is it even realistic? My initial reaction is that we should Keep and Split as/when needed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep largely per Rhododendrites. Maybe these should be in project space, I'm indifferent. But Gibraltar is unquestionably a valid topic for one so long as we do this, and all else is a matter for further development and discussion. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, why should this be a separate page that is a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE of History_of_Gibraltar#References that already lists these books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
    • Because the potential scope of this page is obviously broader than just what is presently used as a reference in that Wikipedia article. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as opposed to Bibliography of South America. A single region/location, especially a small one, is a restrictive enough topic to have a sensible bibliography attached to it. Doing that for a continent is ludicrous, but here the scope is doable, and we are otherwise quite willing to entertain really large bibliographies. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, why should this be a separate page that is a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE of History_of_Gibraltar#References that already lists these books? Reywas92^Talk 01:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That does not strike me as a sensible argument. Even if the two lists overlap or are largely identical at this point, the references at Gibraltar are determined by whatever is used as sources for material in that article, and can't contain anything further. That's not a restriction we have in standalone bibliographies. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soooooo how about a WP:Further reading section? Keeping a duplicate copied-and-pasted page is not a sensible argument. Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious counter would be that "Further reading" sections are supposed to be a small adjunct to an article, and can/should never have the size of a dedicated bibliography page. It appears to me that your arguments are really aimed at the merit of standalone bibliographies as an article type, rather than this specific one. Maybe it's worth having a dedicated discussion on that? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: The article definitely needs to be improved and expanded, but it is a notable topic for a bibliography.  // Timothy :: talk  20:16, 10 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Paisarepa 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Cohen (chemist)[edit]

Theodore Cohen (chemist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. With the exception of obituaries, there is no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Paisarepa 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Consensus is obvious and there is no ongoing discussion that would be cut off. Paisarepa 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There may only be obits here, yet there are three independent obits. One states Cohen, who was a chemistry professor at Pitt for 60 years, died Dec. 13, at 88 years old. During his time at Pitt, he authored more than 200 research papers, and graduates of his lab can be found teaching at colleges and universities around the world. which signifies notability. All a subject of an article has to be is notable. This gentleman vaults that threshold with room to spare. What the article needs is more substance and references for that substance. But AfD is not a mechanism of choice for article improvement Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rather than just saying that the individual 'vaults the [notability] threshold', could you specifically explain how he meets WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, or any other SNG? Paisarepa 23:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I put a section in italics in my !vote. That section itself vaults the threshold. That will have to do for specifics. Fiddle Faddle 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am getting a GS h-index of 30 plus, which passes WP:Prof#C1. The BIO is terse and needs expansion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment One flaw of the h-index is that it does a poor job distinguishing between a relatively mediocre academic who published for a long period of time and a notable academic who published for a shorter duration. Cohen's h-index is inflated by the fact that he published for ~60 years, an unusually long career. Paisarepa 00:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A respectable and respected professor of chemistry. Not seeing the problem. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I looked at the citation metrics of all 63 of his coauthors with 10 or more publications, and all 30 authors (10+ pubs) of the 10 most recent articles citing him. Total citations: average: 4721, median: 1107, Cohen: 5754. Total papers: avg: 124, med: 59, C: 185. h-index: avg: 26, med: 18, C: 42. Highest citation: avg: 359, med: 143, C: 259. Clearly well above even the average in his field in most of these parameters. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Almost all of the metrics you list are cumulative, which means that his being above average in the metrics you list is purely an artifact of the fact that he published for an unusually long period of time. WP:PROF is clear that Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1; Cohen needs something more than a long career and the correspondingly large number of publications to meet WP:PROF. Paisarepa 02:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please distinguish between publications and citations. What he has got is a decent number of citations on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, Cohen has an above average number of total citations (22% higher by JoelleJay's measure) compared to the average academic in his field, but the cause of this is simply that he published for a significantly longer period than the average academic in his field. Consider, for example, another professor who is exactly alike to Cohen in that they match his average of ~3 papers published per year and ~31 citations per paper, but this hypothetical professor publishes for a more typical 40 years compared to Cohen's 60. This hypothetical professor would have published 120 papers and have 3720 citations, and by both metrics would be below average. They would also have a lower h-index due to their shorter publishing career even if their number of citations per paper follows the same distribution as that of Cohen. Cohen is above average with regards to these metrics only because the metrics are dependent on and highly correlated with career duration. Without applying some common-sense normalization to these metrics you're largely just measuring publishing volume and career longevity, neither of which are measures of notability. Paisarepa 04:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. WP:Prof measures cumulative achievement. Obviously a person will have more achievements at the end of their career than at the start. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I agree, an impactful achievement could be a single discovery of somebody that never does anything again or somebody who consistently contributes to a field over time. Of course the Great man theory of science opts for the former but in practice science is done more often in small but important steps. On top of that, I count 6 papers with citation count > 100, you usually dont achieve that by simply writing a lot of small irrelevant papers over a long period of time. --hroest 14:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly relevant, see multiple different obituaries. An academic who had graduate students become PIs at other Universities has clearly had a strong impact on the field. More information can be found for example in the award justification for the Pittsburg award: https://www.chem.pitt.edu/news-story/professor-ted-cohen-2009-winner-acs-pittsburgh-section-award "His graduate significant contributions on the chemistry of pyridines and pyridine-N-oxides ... Pioneering work, on organocopper chemistry in 60's and 70's, organolithium and sulfur chemistry in the 80's and 90's, has been and still is the signature of Ted's voluminous work in the lab. His major contributions embrace mechanisms, synthetic methodology and natural product synthesis." The main issue with the article is that it needs improvement and addition of noteable facts. --hroest
• Keep JoelleJay's argument that he passes WP:PROF#C1 sounds solid to me. (Whether the numbers are "cumulative" is beside the point; one way to be an influential scientist is to keep doing research that people keep caring about, and if it works, it works. Some of us have long careers and stay obscure through to the bitter end.) The article can be expanded with details from the obituaries, like how he waited tables at a summer resort while he was an undergraduate, and Isaac Asimov encouraged him to go into chemistry. XOR'easter (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see several quite highly cited papers, in what I understand to be a medium citation field. I think it's a pass of WP:NPROF C1. Sure, he's well-known partly because of the length of his career (but you could say the same for Johnny Carson). Pitt held a small event for him on the occasion of his retirement, and there's a little more about him in coverage of the event in the chemistry department newsletter [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russ Woodroofe (talk • contribs) 08:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per all above, have enough notability. Hulatam (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree. --Bduke (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There may be enough here for WP:PROF#C1. The in-depth analysis above looks at average citations per paper, but I think that's a mistake; we want to determine whether he made at least a small number of significant contributions, and averaging over all papers doesn't pick out the significant ones. The sources claiming that his phenol syntheses were included in textbooks, and that he was known for his work on organosulfur and organometals, look more relevant for this than trying to understand how citation numbers in this field might have varied over time in order to calibrate the numbers. Regardless, I think we also have enough here for WP:GNG. The sources affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh can be considered reliable but are non-independent; however, the Chemical & Engineering News and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette obituaries look independent enough (in particular, the one in the Post-Gazette appears to be an article written by them, rather than a paid death notice from a family member). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Pinging Paisarepa as well) I agree it's more important to weigh the qualitative contributions to the field when that's an option/the info is available. I do want to note that the metrics I use don't include average citation per paper but rather total citations and highest citation. I looked at all of Dr. Cohen's coauthors in an effort to account for longevity and differences in citation standards over time, and then looked at the authors of the 10 most recent articles citing him for comparisons with contemporary researchers. Looking at just his coauthors: total cites: avg: 6010, med: 1130, C: 5754; total pubs: avg: 130, med: 41, C: 185; h-index: avg: 29, med: 19, C: 42; highest citation: avg: 447, med: 162, C: 259. Note that these numbers skew the averages (not so much the medians) upward a lot due to a handful of old heavy-hitters like Houk of Houk's model and John Falck of aziridine and hydrastine synthesis fame. JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to meet WP:NPROF and has some additional independant sourcing. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The nominator may like to withdraw to avoid further waste of editors' time. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC),[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'm aware that there is a clear consensus but do not intend to withdraw the nomination until I'm confident there isn't a valuable discussion that may be short-circuted by doing so. As a reminder, there is no obligation to participate if you feel doing so is a waste of your time. Paisarepa 22:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note for the record, that the nominator first proposed uncontroversial deletion without discussion. Now they want lots of discussion but it's not clear what their point is. Meanwhile, I'm getting the article reviewed to appear on the main page as a DYK. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW close... gone on long enough already. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:33, 8 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 Gibraltar#Cultural references. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar in popular culture[edit]

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

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

Currently on hiatus from AfD, but got a few of those 'deprod per WP:DEPROD' summaries in my watchlist. This is a synthesis of "minor mentions in notable works" and "non-notable works with more than passing references", and if it were trimmed down to major appearances in anything significant, it would be a permastub at best. The collection of examples here is not natural, sensical, or in line with WP:LISTN/WP:LISTPURP. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge These things are usually spinoffs from the main topic and so the worst case would be merger to Gibraltar#Cultural_references which is currently meagre. It is easy to find general sources about the topic such as Gibraltar – 'an emblem of waste and loneliness' and Writing the Rock of Gibraltar. And there was the huge amount of fuss about the TV show, Death on the Rock. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to parent topic, of which it is an obvious subtopic. postdlf (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge reliably sourced entries to Gibraltar#Cultural references. The article cannot stand on its own but those entries that are sourced can be mentioned in the parent article. WP:TRIVIA should be avoided. IceWelder [✉] 09:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly valid spinoff article. Won't all fit nicely in the main article, so valid content is spinout to a side article. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/almanac-gibraltar/ Gibraltar looms large in our popular culture as well. Dream Focus 12:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. WP:NOTDIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acousmana (talk • contribs)
  • WP:VAGUEWAVE. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • someone's pet WP:OR project, was this commissioned by the Gibraltar Tourist Board or something? are we going to create one of these for every country next? It's absurd. Acousmana (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Was this commissioned by the Gibraltar Tourist Board or something?" Funny you say that... Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: ha, OK, thanks! I did not know this, interesting. Acousmana (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gibraltar#Cultural references, right now it is an example farm and crufty spinoff._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gibraltar#Cultural references as per all above. Cuoxo (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a stand-alone article this suffers from XKCD 446 [3] syndrome. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per power~enwiki. Archrogue (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectivey as suggested. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge: Article needs to be expanded beyond a list, but the subject is notable. I don't think it meets LISTN, so if someone wishes to merge sourced content into an appropriate target I have no objection. If someone ever decides to recreate this as an article instead of a list, the material can be recovered from the history.  // Timothy :: talk  20:29, 10 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) 23:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Guernsey[edit]

List of windmills in Guernsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Currently on hiatus from AfD, but got a few of those 'deprod per WP:DEPROD' summaries in my watchlist. List fails WP:LISTPURP/WP:LISTN; it's a collection of generic (WP:MILL, if you want to make a terrible pun) windmills on a minor island. There is little informational (the limits of Wikipedia require this list be more sparse in both scope and description than it would be on a specialized website, and so make nobody happy) or navigational (none of the windmills have or could have articles) value. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I really disagree with this nom. I think WP:LISTN is met, since the windmills have been occasionally discussed as a set, and none of them may necessarily be notable enough for their own page (see WP:CSC) and the information is, er, informational. Just because a specialist website might contain more information is not a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being on hiatus from AfD does not grant immunity to PRODs which are supposed to be uncontroversial. The page is reasonably well-sourced and the topic seems quite reasonable and respectable. As for WP:MILL, it's an essay and so has "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". See also the Mills of God. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would note it is eminently counterproductive to your goals to inspire an inclusionist to come back to AfD with the goal of deleting articles. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per SportingFlyer WP:LISTN is satisfied. Hulatam (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - It's a sub-list of the List of windmills, per WP:LSC. Of the mills in the Bailiwick of Guernsey, Vale Mill and Sark Windmill may just be notable enough to sustain articles, but it would be hard work getting either above start class. The subject is notable enough to sustain a list, per WP:LISTN. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A well sourced and valuable resource. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As a list this doesn't meet LISTN in its current state, but given the subject and the number of books written about windmills, and the sources in the article, I think this could be expanded beyond a simple list. Since these are historical structures, there are probably a number of notable articles which means this could be the SUMMARY article for the subject and the list would meet CLN.  // Timothy :: talk  20:38, 10 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkFree Office[edit]

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

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

This article is a complete train wreck. Bad grammar, feels like a kid wrote it. We should just delete instead of fixing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namethatisnotinuse (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AfD is not cleanup. The article is a stub so fixing its grammar mistakes is not a tedious task. A search of Google books reveals the product has been featured many times in PC Magazine and Macworld. There's a hit on JSTOR and there's this review article as well. Meets WP:GNG. Mottezen (talk) 19:25, 6 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. Deleted by User:GB fan as WP:A9. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7 Of Hearts[edit]

7 Of Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Album by rapper who does not have an article. Neither the album nor the rapper have any visible coverage outside of self-uploaded streaming and social media sites. This album has no independent or reliable coverage as required at WP:NALBUM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - zero notability, a total and complete failure of WP:NALBUM. In addition to the complete lack of coverage, he has 12 followers on SoundCloud and none of his songs even have 1000 plays on Spotify or more than 15 views on YouTube. This is probably even worthy of the rarely used WP:A9. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've also noticed that the article says that this is the artist's 2nd debut studio album. What!? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I wish the artist the best of luck with his career but this is a silly inclusion on Wikipedia. Carbrera (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Delete A9, per Spiderone and nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per A9 and the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable failing WP:NMG . --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 15:39, 4 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) 23:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvedon Hatch F.C.[edit]

Kelvedon Hatch F.C. (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 previously deleted via PROD with the rationale Fails to meet generally accepted notability criteria for clubs, i.e. playing at Step 6 or above, or having played in the FA Cup/Vase. This concern remains valid.

I also think that this fails WP:GNG. In recent times, it gets name checks in local papers, for example in this article. Searching through British newspaper archives gives nothing significant unless you count the odd mention in results listings in the Chelmsford Chronicle as such. A book called Kelvedon Hatch, 1840 – 1920: A Guided Tour seems to make a reference to such a club; "The first mention of an official Kelvedon Hatch football team is from 1918, although it is believed there was a team before then." That's about all I could really find. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 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)} 21:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being from Essex, anything below Essex Senior League is not notable. Village team.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - well below the standard we should cover. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete I must register my huge disappointment in this being voted for deletion. This club is directly referenced on the Essex Olympian Football League page, and as you can see, various other clubs have their own pages on there (including ones in lower divisions of the league). I have created this page because it is of interest to the people of Essex, and the people of Kelvedon Hatch. The club has achieved considerable success over the years, winning a variety of tournaments and leagues and I for one believe that it deserves its own page. To even fight for my page that is not going against or harming anyone is absurd, and I have put so much effort into this page so its quite down putting to see you all want to take it down. Luke780 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those other clubs meet WP:FOOTYN because they have either played at step 6 or above or played in the FA Vase, FA Cup or other national cup. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG. @Luke780:, we require reliable secondary sources to write encyclopaedia articles, this article is sourced only to the club's website and the league website, which don't count towards notability since they're effectively self-published. If you can find newspaper articles which cover the club significantly (we haven't found any yet), you can use those to show the club's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Have found an article, if no good then Delete The only newspaper article I could find of any significance was this one, featured in the Romford Recorder. If it is indeed no good then it pains me to say but I can see that you are all correct and the page should indeed be marked for deletion. Sorry to be a nuisance everyone, it was a simple mistake on my part if so. I hope you all have a great day Luke780 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is better coverage than anything that I managed to find but it still falls into WP:ROUTINE coverage, in my view. It's a local paper doing a build-up piece for the local cup with a comment from Hatch's manager. On its own, it doesn't do enough to establish the importance or significance of this club. In other words, it couldn't really be used to flesh out an encyclopaedia article in any significant way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as below the generally agreed threshold for club notability. Number 57 12:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As noted by others, the club does not seem to have the notability/level of coverage that would be required for it to have its own article. I would note that the Kelvedon Hatch article does not currently mention the club, so perhaps a brief mention of it there instead would be in order. Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 6 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 keep. Self-withdrawing, as all the promotional puffery has been removed, and the article is notable by consensus below. (non-admin closure) Steve M (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Haberman[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to be notable. Only links are to the official site and LinkedIn-like profiles, which are not notable enough. Next, a Google search did not give me any good, reliable sources. Meanwhile, the article is very promotional in it's current state and may benefit from WP:TNT regardless if the subject is barely notable. Steve M (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Steve M (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Steve M (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Steve M (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The article has been the subject of some promotional editing lately, but the earlier version (as of 20 March 2020) is better, with links to sites verifying her status as a visiting Fellow at Bournemouth University and a recipient of the British Female Inventor and Innovative Network (BFIIN) Female Inventor of the Year 2000. (This is a weak keep, because I'm not aware of the significance of the BFIIN award, or the "visiting Fellow" status. I've reverted to that earlier version of the page (keeping the AFD notice intact, of course.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, multiple WP:RS available in The Telegraph, FT, and The Guardian. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, also plenty of coverage in The Times (viewable in Wikipedia Library/ProQuest) Piecesofuk (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Current sources passes WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 18:44, 4 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) 23:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polycrates complex[edit]

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

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

This is not a notable concept; it's barely even a verifiable concept. This is a peripheral, almost passing idea from one psychoanalytic book from 1945, and its existence elsewhere is passing mentions in some following literature (direct quote: "[the term] Polycrates complex hardly deserves a column") and people directly ripping Wikipedia articles (e.g. mirrors and those interminable pronunciation videos). Prodded and deprodded, with little in the way of rationale for the latter. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge It has an entry by this title in the Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis (1968). The worst case would be merger to some similar concept such as Jonah complex. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most passing familiarity with psychology belies that those aren't coherent concepts to merge. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One guy's coinage, mentioned passingly in the decades since and, as the nominator noted, sometimes with derision then. (The "hardly deserves a column" dig is actually from a review of the Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis mentioned in the previous !vote [4].) The claim about its use in criminology has been unsourced since the article was created in 2005.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge somewhere. This is a definition of a term that has been used. We have got one reference (from 1945). It may belong to an aspect of psychology that is no longer in vogue, which is probably why there is nothing more recent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a definition, and that's all it is, per WP:NOTDICT. We can verify that it was an idea someone had once; there's no evidence anyone much cared. There are plenty of notable concepts from early psychology, including routes people don't really go down anymore, but this isn't one of them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. The number of terms coined by academics every year is large, while the fraction of them that gain any nontrivial traction is small. XOR'easter (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and XOR'easter. Not a notable concept. Lennart97 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agree with XOR'easter, non-notable concept, no sources showing notability for GNG. Nothing shows up in a journal search. Merging would require properly sourced content, and the source does not support the text. I couldn't find any appropriate redirect target, but if someone finds one and it make sense the closer should consider it. But unsourced content should not be merged into other articles.  // Timothy :: talk  10:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. It's sourced to a single primary source, and thus is original research. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 10 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. Happy to userfy in case anyone wants to try to incorporate anything elsewhere, but there's a consensus that the film does not meet our notability guideline. No prejudice against a redirect if warranted. Go Phightins! 23:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punnaram[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed because there is a mentioning of the movie in the director's obituary. I am not sure how that is related to the movie itself. Kolma8 (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM. A mere mention in an obituary is not enough to establish notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Agree with the opinion that there is not enough sources to establish notability. But since this is a movie, its practically not possible for some movies to find sources. So sources like this can be considered to establish notability [5]. Also additional inclusionary criteria also says that The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. This was one of the notable movies of the director mentioned in the source. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kashmorwiki, the sheer fact that there is no available sources supports (or should support) this deletion nomination. It is arrant balderdash to keep an article which fails all the criteria of WP:NFILM and WP:GNG and for which we all agree that there is no sources to support notability. Even many movies from the 1920s, 1950s (to include movies from India) have sources to support their notability and impact on the movie history. Kolma8 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kolma8, please note my comment.This is the reason why I said weak keep. I know there are not enough sources. RegardsKichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Three of the four sources in the article are database listings with no SIGCOV and the obit is a mention. Notability is not inherited from participants in the film. I couldn't find much of anything other than promos and listings and there are not even many promos. No objection to a redirect to Sasi Shanker, but I do not see sourced content for a merge.  // Timothy :: talk  21:06, 10 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) 23:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Overseas teams in the Round of 64 of the Coupe de France since 2015[edit]

List of Overseas teams in the Round of 64 of the Coupe de France since 2015 (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'm probably missing something here but I'm struggling to see the significance of this list. Is there something special or exclusive about overseas teams competing in the round of 64 in this competition since 2015? I can't see how WP:LISTN or WP:GNG are met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 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)} 20:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone Keep, but i admit that the page needs of improvements. Can we move the page in the draftspace? Dr Salvus (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can do if there is consensus for that in this discussion. Generally, though, there would need to be potential for the topic to be encyclopaedic and notable. Are there multiple reliable sources reporting about overseas teams in the round of 64 since 2015? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overseas France is France. Unclear why these teams are singled out any differently from teams from Paris or teams from Corsica since there are no sources specifically about the performance of Overseas teams. Respective articles like 2018–19 French Cup show the regions all the teams are from and their performances. Reywas92^Talk 21:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Overseas, as a direct translation of the French Outre-mer does have a specific meaning in France, being shorthand for the collectivity of overseas departments and territories (DOMTOM or départements d'outre-mer et territoires d'outre-mer). In football and Coupe de France terms, I've always referred to these as Overseas departments and territories, because to the casual reader overseas can be confusing - and even could be taken out of context to include Corsica which isn't a contiguous part of mainland france, but is counted as such in organisational terms. The situation on wiki is confused even more by our article on French overseas departments and territories residing since 2017 at Overseas France. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - list serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 21:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely arbitrary criteria. Nigej (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This list serves no purpose when their is the Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France page which is basically the exact copy just with more details from the earlier years. HawkAussie (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HawkAussie There are differences. This article describes the journey of the overseas teams even in the preliminary rounds. This page has different purposes than the other one you mentioned. Dr Salvus (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - list is just abstraction of data from the existing preliminary round articles, and seems to have an arbitrary cutoff of when the detailed coverage of preliminary rounds started on-wiki. Progress of the of overseas teams through their own self-contained competition could be linked from within the other article Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France, to render this list completely unnecessary, if that gap explicitly needs to be covered.Gricehead (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a long title header, I can understand and see what the creator is trying to do, but I don't see this needed really. There are other ways the reader can learn this. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I mentioned at the WT:FOOTY discussion, don't see a need for this separate article for performances from 2015 onwards. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete serves no purpose --Devokewater 15:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR: sourcing a page to a single source is not an article, it's original research bordering on a copyright violation. We have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fail to see how it could be both original research and a copyright violation. Nonetheless, it should be deleted as an arbitrary list. Smartyllama (talk) 18:26, 10 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 Mortician (band). Daniel (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Bloodbath Session[edit]

The Final Bloodbath Session (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnotable album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Mortician (band). Article does not pass WP:GNG. HĐ (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A live album by the band Mortician. While they are awesome, I think this album of theirs is not notable. The article was created by a now blocked user back in 2015. Tagged for notability since that same year. Sourced solely to a blank Allmusic page (track listing + user reviews). Couldn't find any decent sources, only the usual junk, like youtube, retail sites, databases, blogs, download links and lyrics sites. No evidence of notability other than the fact that the band is notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OR. For the third time today, this is original research of it's sourced to a single website. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mortician (band). Article does not pass GNG or NALBUM.  // Timothy :: talk  21:15, 10 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. Sandstein 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thuringian forest donkey[edit]

Thuringian forest donkey (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 source cited. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are sources describing this breed - 1 2 3. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 3 reliable sources provided above seem good enough for me Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Recognized breed, sources are readily available (but obviously should have been added to the article ab initio...). Added two good ones to the article that seem to cover most of the material. Inline refs would be desirable though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:HEY, now it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per all above and WP:HEY. Cuoxo (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I've added some sources and a little sourced content to the page (a good deal of it is duplicated, so it isn't as much as it might seem, and that's not much). This is recognised and reported to DAD-IS as a breed, so I suppose we have to accept that it is one; on the other hand, it's a tiny group of about twenty donkeys with nothing much to distinguish them from any other donkeys, and of minimal notability or encyclopaedic interest. I usually argue that any breed with official national recognition deserves an independent article, so I suppose that this does too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: good call on the "Canadian Journal of Applied Sciences" - looks like it's an IDOSI journal [6], with the attendant lack of strict peer review and dodgy credentials; didn't notice when I added that. Still, recognized breed and such. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:14, 5 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. Sandstein 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Lapierre[edit]

Alexandra Lapierre (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 sources cited. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:HEY, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR due to the rapid improvements and additions of reviews and in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources to this article, including Kirkus Reviews, the San Francisco Chronicle, The New York Times, 2, 3, and the Washington Post Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Yes the creator had asked for a little time as they were not able to move the title of the article (I had earlier CSD'd this - see my talk page) the article has been improved and passes NAUTHOR in my opinion JW 1961 Talk 21:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article has been vastly improved and notability is clearly demonstrated Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She is notable, her works have drawn significant critical attention: review published in Art in America, The Guardian, The New York Times, Elle magazine, Le Point, a French magazine, review in another French newspaper, Le Monde, published in French financial newspaper, Les Echos, article published in Vol. 50 of Nineteenth-Century Literature, discusses her work, another article published in Vol. 23 of Women's Art Journal, talks about her work, and there are several other sources. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 10 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 Rider University. (WP:ATD) Daniel (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadow Yearbook[edit]

The Shadow Yearbook (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 is unreferenced and hasn't been meaningfully updated in years. It's highly unusual to have a separate page for a college yearbook (Category:Yearbooks has 44 entries, but at most 10 of them are for college yearbooks, and most of those are likely non-notable). A WP:BEFORE search found nothing useful (even a Newspapers.com search found only results for an unrelated high school yearbook). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete year books are almost never indepdently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rider University: Article is unsourced OR, I couldn't find any sources for the content, nothing meets SIGCOV with direct and indepth coverage to meet GNG or NBOOK. If someone finds sources for an article, this information could be recovered from the redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  21:22, 10 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. Sandstein 23:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wah Bhudi[edit]

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

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

Non-notable film. References are only videos and Google brings nothing except database listing. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources in the article are a youtube video of the film, a link about online poker, and a 404 page. So the article is unsourced OR. I couldn't find anything with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, I don't think there is a good redirect target, but if someone feels strongly about a redirect, no objection, but there is no content for a merge and OR should not be merged.  // Timothy :: talk  21:35, 10 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 Universal Indicator (collective)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 23:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Indicator Red[edit]

Universal Indicator Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nomination includes:

Universal Indicator Yellow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both albums fail WP:NMUSIC (and have been tagged as such since 2016). There is no significant coverage to be found other than an AllMusic review of Red (Yellow has a rating but no review), which is not sufficient. There are no charts, certification, rewards or anything else to suggest notability. I suggest to redirect to Universal Indicator (collective)#Discography (this nomination is the result of a contested redirection). Lennart97 (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Universal Indicator (collective)#Discography: It looks like there are no sources to make this notable. The lead is unreferenced (and is not a summary of the content below). Also, there are probably not enough material to warrant a standalone article. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Universal Indicator (collective). There is no reason to include the tracklisting, but the rest of the two articles should not be deleted. Cambial foliage❧ 14:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: which content do you propose to merge, specifically? Neither article has any sourced or substantial content other than the track listing. Lennart97 (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The images and lead content. Cambial foliage❧ 15:22, 4 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. Sandstein 23:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Rock Music Magazine[edit]

Mega Rock Music Magazine (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 that this magazine is or was ever notable, perhaps its an issue with the common name but I can't find any sources beyond what I removed because they were all WP:COPYVIOELs of images of the magazine, so nothing of value was lost even by removing them... CUPIDICAE💕 19:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I was a teenager in the UK in the 1980s, and I've never even heard of this magazine. It appears to have been a monthly publication, with each issue focusing solely on one artist and their associated acts, and consisting mostly of a giant fold-out poster, with bits of trivia and gossip about the artist. Definitely aimed more at "fan club" level rather than any serious music publication like NME, Melody Maker, Sounds or Record Mirror. Edit: I've just seen the edit history of this article, and I'm 99% certain I know now who the temporarily-blocked article creator is. Richard3120 (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 as in a sock or IRL? Also I did a lot of searching for this magazine and the only thing I can find is the ISSN and ebay...doesn't look like it was ever much of anything. CUPIDICAE💕 20:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly yet another sock of one of Wikipedia's most prolific sockers. Going to check their edit history for comparisons. Richard3120 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I assumed based on their rapid fire reverting of the AFD template they had to be new! Maybe I'm giving sock masters too much credit. CUPIDICAE💕 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now 99.9% certain, and the article's other editor, Travishill4634, will be the same person as well. Going to open up an SPI. Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt sock editor trying to create article about a non notable magazine that I'm sure if was allowed, he would then say that's proof to continue his disruptive editing about some boy band. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: the two editors who created content for this page are confirmed as socks of each other, at least. Richard3120 (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:OR. Unreferenced articles are original research, no matter how much this meant to you as a teenager. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 10 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 based on consensus around the GNG threshold, since specific notability guidance are presumptions subordinate to the general guideline. Go Phightins! 23:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiarn Powell[edit]

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

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

PROD was added last year due to WP:NFOOTBALL failure and was removed with According to its article, this is the top-level national league. By insisting that it is not "professional", you are making the sexist argument that women can never be notable in this sport.

While searching for coverage to see if Powell could pass WP:GNG, I did a search focused on Australian sources. The best that I could find were a trivial mention and quote in The Transcontinental and an article in The Sydney Daily Telegraph, which is a long quote from her but contains no actual significant coverage of Powell herself. The notability that GNG requires must come from other people writing about Powell. There is nothing in this article nor outside of it that establishes why Powell is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 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)} 19:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. I do believe it passes NFOOTBALL. Noah!^💬 18:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't: the W-League is not listed as a fully professional league. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per above fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Cuoxo (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Goldman[edit]

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

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

Feel like this needs more than PROD as it's a longstanding (auto)biography. The sole claim to notability (being on the cover of SI) is really that a photo of him with a teammate is used to accompany an interview with the teammate. There's no information on Goldman there or in any other sourcing I can find with which to build an article. StarM 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable college basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete concur with nom. MB 21:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe Goldman fails WP:GNG. Additionally, if this page were to stay up, it would need to be developed significantly. This is certainly a stub. Jonathan170 (talk) 00:52, 6 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 withdrawn (see [7]). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dolich[edit]

Andy Dolich (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 BLP with no reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 3 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. Sandstein 23:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ESTfield[edit]

Lack of notability - SteveBrownIreland (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, there are some WP:RS here and here. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SailingInABathTub, That's half a sentence and then a full sentence. Fails WP:SIGCOV, I am afraid.--04:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. Citing it to a fan page is original research, not a Wikipedia article. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franziska Bröckl[edit]

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

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

None of Bröckl's appearances qualify under WP:NFOOTBALL as it has long since been established that youth caps do not make you automatically notable. The best coverage that I could find were this Westfalen Blatt article and this NW article, neither of which even come close to showing a passing of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 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)} 18:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coverage that I found was primarily routine coverage from Bochum that did not address the individual in-depth. No significant coverage found and does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 16:02, 9 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. Sandstein 23:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Hill Whisky[edit]

Signal Hill Whisky (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 whisky brand. I found one book mention for it, but it doesn't look very solid to establish notability. What do whisky conneseurs think? Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The most notable thing about this brand is that it's owned by Actor Dan Aykroyd. While it might not be note-able yet, it's on it way to being so quickly.Dustintitus (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Still an unknown quantity in the UK still. Not tried it, but from what I have heard its very sweet. Only seen a couple of reviews on smaller blog sites.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article is WP:TOOSOON, it does need tidying up --Devokewater 19:06, 1 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. None of the "keep" opinions (to the extent they are even intelligible) indicate that there are reliable sources for this topic (instead they indicate the opposite, as Elmidae points out). Sandstein 23:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kenopsia[edit]

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

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

WP:BEFORE brings up nothing that doesn't directly link back to the Tumblr blog "The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows", the most "notable" of which being a passing reference to the post in the book Feminism and Intersectionality in Academia – another one being a horoscope in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. At its core, this subject has no original, reliable literature upon which to base an encyclopedic entry. At best, this subject in its current state of notability could be reinstated on Wiktionary with attestation such as the aforementioned book chapter mention, but it's so flimsily and nebulously defined by essentially one anonymous person as to be wholly unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. The article's current state – completely uncited, full of unverifiable speculation about when kenopsia may allegedly manifest – reflects this. This was originally PRODed by Joseywales1961 and was endorsed by me soon after, but it was removed by Andrew Davidson without a mention in the edit summary, and they haven't gotten back in touch with me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge This is especially topical during this year of pandemic lockdowns and there doesn't seem to be a better word for the concept. In any case, the obvious alternative to deletion is merger to The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hey, Andrew. Topicality doesn't define whether or not a subject merits its own Wikipedia article; notability guidelines do. A (very) partial merge actually seems like a fine idea to me and like something I would Support, as I wasn't aware TDoS had a Wikipedia page. As I said, I've found citations linking back to this definition, so it would be a pretty trivial matter to include a mention of it under the 'Notable words' section. As far as what can be merged over? I would say "not much". The last two paragraphs are basically unsalvageable OR. Most of the first paragraph is fine, as is the concept's relationship to COVID-19 (with appropriate sourcing). The best rationale for a merge, in my opinion, is just the redirect that would be created to The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in its current form the article is uncited and OR, a similar BEFORE to the noms was carried out by myself before I PROD'ed this with results as are so well explained by TheTecnician27 above in the nomination for AfD. JW 1961 Talk 18:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero treatment in the scientific literature, and outside that it's dictdefs. Without a minimum of independent coverage, there's also no call for merging anything to the article on the dictionary - sensibly that article is not a listing of all the contents and restricts itself to actually notable terms ("Sonder"). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge Hello, i am the creator of the article, i had not heard of the concept of Kenopsia until i saw a youtube video which mentioned it and i decided to research, just like you, i couldn't find any reputable sources other then the tumblr blug, after using some of googles tools to try to track down the first mention (as to create a "History" section), but while the tumblr blog wasn't scientific in any way i decided to cite it as it seemed to be the earliest mention of "Kenopsia" and while i do somewhat believe that i should not have written the article due to lack of sources, i didn't realize that there was an article for TDoS already, so i would be fine if it was merged, but my article isn't the first, there's other articles that don't have much of a lead either and they too describe emotions, i couldn't find much about noctcaelador or hireath on google or any other search engines, of course those articles do have better leads then just one tumblr blog, hireath i would like to think is part of welsh culture and the concpet of noctcaelador was created by a William E. Kelly, a person who is likely more known then the tumblr blog i cited for my article, and one last thing before i sign off, i would like to believe that wikipedia is one of the most trusted websites in the world, and we all have our duty to make sure that articles stay true and original, many people use wikipedia and trust it, i've used it for many years, so has everyone i have known, if i wanted to know about something the first place i usually go to is wikipedia, and when an article doesn't exist i use google, but when that just brings up a tumblr blog, i know that i'd want to create an article for it on this safe, trustful website that almost everyone knows about, and so future people won't have to click on a random tumblr link to know more, which is still a risk in 2021, and that's why i not only joined wikipedia but also why i created the article, to share my knowledge with the world, to contribute, to make a little known concept that only a few may have known about, avalible to the entire world population of english speakers and readers, thank you for reading. OGWFP (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cut to the chase: i couldn't find any reputable sources other then the tumblr blug - there's your problem. If there are no reliable sources, we cannot have an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows has WP:MADEUP a lot of neologisms, but they need not be made into redirects. Not a real thing or substantively and reliably covered as such whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 23:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SeaPeeKay[edit]

SeaPeeKay (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 did a quick google search and see the platforms he takes part in, but I don't see the in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yet another non-notable Minecraft streamer. Poydoo can talk and edit 22:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - For what it's worth, he had a couple of mentions ([8][9]) in the Guinness Book blog. Apparently for inventing new ways to play Minecraft competitively. As far as I can tell that fizzled, though. ApLundell (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. IceWelder [✉] 09:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article fails WP:GNG as there aren’t much articles made about this person. The only notable articles that I found were two articles from the Guinness World Records. (Jullian Neon) 20:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of WP:RS, and also WP:OUTCOMES. Only has poor sources. We have deleted dozens of pages about YouTubers, even those with millions of followers, if they can't be sourced properly. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 10 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of French people[edit]

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

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

This is a low-quality article that is, presently, a brief list of vaguely-cited unencyclopedic views about French people with citations that rarely reach into actual discussions of stereotypes themselves and focus more on whether this purported stereotype is valid. I am unconvinced that this is notable, valuable, or encyclopedic. "Stereotypes of..." pages are something of a "bad edit magnet" in general, and I don't think this page has enough good edits to suggest that there is enough content to justify the existence of this page. It's had a "please improve" tag since last November, with no substantial improvements, and the content (and content quality) of the article appear similar throughout the article's life. Kistaro Windrider (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Kistaro Windrider (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Kistaro Windrider (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Kistaro Windrider (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Kistaro Windrider (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Anti-French sentiment, with selective merging. No reason for separate article on negative stereotypes. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per User:El cid, el campeador. Doesn't warrant its own article. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep you bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Please see WP:AFDEQ. Thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG. Seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKETHIS. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think my argument was more along the lines of the two articles being duplicative and not seeing any reason not to merge. Your argument seems to be WP:ILIKEIT. GNG is really not a relevant rebuttal to this nomination. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I was addressing the nomination, specifically the statement "I am unconvinced that this is notable, valuable, or encyclopaedic", not your comment. I was making the point (albeit briefly) that the subject, Stereotypes of French people has significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, as cited in the article and therefore should not be deleted. Since you have raised your point with me, it should not be re-directed or merged for two reasons 1) the topic is independently notable (see here, here, and here) 2) French stereotypes do not have to have their origins in anti-French sentiment, such as the stereotypes related to romance and sexuality (see here). SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Anti-French sentiment. This does not warrant its own article and it is poorly written. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Anti-French sentiment, selective merging, does not need to be a separate (thin) article. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is very poorly written as others have pointed out, but it's definitely fixable. As for notability, the topic is definitely notable, a google search brings up tons of results. I don't think it should be merged to the Anti-French sentiment article as it has received plenty of coverage on its own, and many stereotypes are of a comedic tone and not actually anti-French in nature. Pladica (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Nominator. I'm ambivalent on what it should be redirected to, but I'm not persuaded this article is valuable. I could easily just not be imaginative enough to see what it could be if it was written well, though; I'd like to hear what folks who think "needs fixing, but keep" is the correct strategy think, vaguely, the article should look like after it's fixed. What presents the topic in a valuable way that isn't the current "list of stuff that just kind of exists"? It'd be a lot more interesting if this had history and cultural context, and I can see the value in a "Stereotypes of..." article in that context. But I don't see any reason to believe that this will ever become that article. I feel bad discussing the article I'd like to see and then not volunteering to write it, but I don't think of myself as good at, well, writing articles. Kistaro Windrider (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by gar. It is not the same as anti-French sentiment. Zut alors! Some stereotypes are quite flattering, e.g. great lovers, connoisseurs, suave, etc., n'est pas? Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." There are numerous more sources available for this such as Of Stereotypes and of the French. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. A quick look at GScholar suggest the concept is discussed in scholarly works. There is likely more in French language. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If the current title is retained, then it should Redirect to Anti-French sentiment. There is a disconnect between the title, which is neutral, and current content, which is negative. Other stereotypes off the top of my head are: one of the world's top cuisines, high fashion, luxury branding, classic cinema and New Wave, film stars, world standard for wines, fashionably-dressed women, a vibrant night life, famous artists and museums, the standard for flirtation and seduction, public veneration and interest in intellectual currents, the birth of second-wave feminism and a vibrant feminist scene, a welcoming environment for American blacks discriminated against at home, the French Riviera, world-level engineering in high speed trains, fighter jets, jumbo aircraft, and aerospace; and so on. If the article is kept, either the title or the content has to change, because per WP:AT, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles," and currently the article fails that policy. Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well-sourced and whole books and libraries of articles have been written about it. Adieu! Bearian (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think the topic is notable without even looking and looking at sources in the article show this. I don't think this article should be merged or redirected to Anti-French sentiment, sentiment and stereotypes are two different things (eg: there are "positive" sterotypes such as in the High Fashion and romance sections, but anti-sentiment would obviously always be negative). The article defintely needs to be expanded  // Timothy :: talk  03:22, 11 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. Sandstein 23:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet[edit]

Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet (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 and WP:NOTDIR. No significant reliable sources on page. On inspection linked sources are either dead or WP:UGC. NY Times cite on page does not mention the model of bus it is used against. Nightfury 14:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I don't see a substantial question as to whether this is verifiable regardless of the current state of links on the page. The history of the MTA's infrastructure, as with any comparably large and notable transit agency, is a relevant part of our coverage. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Total fancruft mostly sourced by self published sources. This article could also be consider too: Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations demonstration bus fleet Ajf773 (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, see here. Mtattrain (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and keep general information in the active fleet page. Mtattrain (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourced to personal websites, fails WP:GNG.----Pontificalibus 10:36, 8 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. It turns out that the deletion request by the now-blocked IP was some kind of trolling attempt. Sandstein 19:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Sakitnak Akammak[edit]

Alice Sakitnak Akammak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Procedural, completing the AFD nom for 85.84.33.17, who added the template but did not finish the nomination. --- Possibly (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The deletion request by IP 85.84.33.17 is retaliatory in nature. Netherzone (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is pretty pointless as far as I can see (meets WP:ARTIST 4.d) but we have in the past entertained badly formed AFD requests by disruptive editors. The alternative was to delete the malformed AfD request, which I did, but then reconsidered.--- Possibly (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject of the article meets notability criteria for WP:ARTIST as her work has been collected by several museums. All of these collections are verifiable. Netherzone (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep represented in the collections of the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Winnipeg Art Gallery and Peary-MacMillan Arctic Museum. Vexations (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a permanent block or ban for the nominating IP and their socks please. Vexations (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the notoriety of the subject. Do not base the entire article on original primary sources directly involved. User Vexations You must allow your opinion and comment on the subject in question, this is not a fascism or Nazi dictatorship asking for an indiscriminate blockade without arguments.--85.84.33.17 (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sorginak/Archive. I have a list of some 20 IP related to that account. 85.84.33.17 is one of them. Vexations (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NARTIST 4(d), and OMG what a bunch of trollery from that IP. Sorry about that. Theredproject (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ARTIST 4(d) Beccaynr (talk) 04:22, 8 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bindu Krishna[edit]

Bindu Krishna (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 politician who was never elected as an MLA or MP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Cuoxo (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the notabilty guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just for holding unelected roles as regional political organizers, but this is not referenced to anything like enough reliable source coverage about her to get her over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Reliable sources are weak and non notable politician. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meenakshi Sivaramakrishnan[edit]

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

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

Unable to find RS to establish notability. Plus, the books mentioned don't seem to turn up on a DDG search. If bio does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC then delete Vikram 14:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram 14:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram 14:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom: Did a WP:Before and could not find anything. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Current sources fails in WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to being a notable educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 10 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 Khan Kluay#Characters. Sandstein 19:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Khan Kluay characters[edit]

List of Khan Kluay characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Complete WP:CRUFT with no sourcing. I'd be mildly forgiving if it were a list of characters across the entire Khan Kluay franchise, but it seems to only cover the first film. (The film page is iffy quality itself, but has a greater claim to notability.) Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Khan Kluay#Characters where the primary characters of the film are already listed. This list is completely unsourced and as this just covers a single movie, it is not a reasonable WP:SPLIT from the film's main article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, not a noteworthy list on its own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 3 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) 23:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Brewer's Art[edit]

The Brewer's Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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