< March 29	March 31 >

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Matthewson[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, reads like an advert ItsKesha (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ItsKesha (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any decent sources, but there sure are a lot of other James Matthewsons that have gotten into some sticky situations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geraint Frowen[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY per Soccerbase and a Google search goves no decent hits. The only results I could find on him were [1] and [2], which state that he played for Barry Town United F.C. in the third tier of Welsh football six years ago. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL JW 1961^Talk 08:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I only found completely trivial mentions in match reports on regional, amateur football matches Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY Devoke water 13:29, 5 April 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. While the difficulty of accessing old print sources is a valid concern, that in and of itself is insufficient to keep an article lacking other evidence of notability. At the very least, we would need evidence that print coverage existed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tough Tom[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. WP:BEFORE with the stage name and the legal name have not helped to find references. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing this? Just leave it. There are many people on this website who are lesser known, just because I want his tag team partner to have an article too, doesn't mean you should hatefully try to take this down as well. This is seriously a disheartening experience and it's cruel of you to try to take this down. 6SyXx6 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@6SyXx6 We will interpret that as a suggestion that you wish to Keep this article. Please understand that a simple opinion expressed as if this were a ballot does not hold much sway. We need arguments based upon policy.

I "did it" because in another place you drew the community's attention to three articles. This one was deficient in referencing and, indeed I was unable to find any or I would have added sufficient references to allow us to retain it. It is not cruel. It is impersonal. Wikipedia improves if the article is found references and kept; Wikipedia improves if an unreferencable article is removed. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a brand of bicycle tire called "Tough Tom" but filtering out bike related links shows no significant coverage of the wrestler other than database entries and fan blogs. Fails WP:GNG. CodeTalker (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete As an equivalent to a BLP prod, since the article has been tagged for deletion for 7 days and no sources have been added. Per the strict requirements of WP:BLP, this needs to go. A quick search fails to find any significant coverage, but I don't know if this would be covered in more specialist sources, so not giving a final opinion on that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been added now. This page needs to be put up for IMPROVEMENT, not DELETION. Most of the sources I should be referencing are Peurto Rican and American wrestling magazines from the 90's that are no longer in publication. I can't access those publications. How do I reference print media that has been gone for 25 years? 6SyXx6 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added are from wrestling-titles.com, wrestlingclassics.com, tripod.com, scribd.com, reddit.com, cagematch.net, wwfoldschool.com, wrestlingdata.com and tripadvisor.com. Per WP:RSP, scribd and reddit are generally unreliable sources. wrestling-titles seems to be a self-published blog and is therefore not reliable. tripod.com is a blog. cagematch seems to be self-published as well; at least they don't say anything about their editorial policies. Same with wwfoldschool. Furthermore, not a single one of these references contains significant coverage of the subject. Most are simple database entries about the wrestler or a match, or a sentence or two about one of his matches, or in some cases just a photo. None of these do anything to establish notability. CodeTalker (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for destroying something I was trying to fix. Tom Benninghaus and Mike Moran deserved better for all the money they drew in Peurto Rico. You destroyed that dream of having them both be seen as notable people due to their contributions to the Pro Wrestling industry. You are hateful. You all have no soul. You went after an article I referenced because I tried to get his tag partner a page. You mods here make me sick, do you feel better now? I made a CLEAR CASE that most of the publications and references I could give were from actual Magazines from the 90's which you can't find online. I am done with Wikipedia. There's so many lesser known perfomrers with a Wiki page, go on, seek them out and destroy their memory too. 6SyXx6 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cassida Corporation[edit]

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

Borderline G11 eligible article on a non notable organization despite their bogus notability claims in the article. A WP:BEFORE search shows they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus WP:NCORP isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why Celestina007 removed the G11 Speedy. This does require a fundamental rewrite, and it is also UPE. AFD'ing this is just a make-work project that amounts to WP:BOGOF if we spend time assessing and fixing the paid editor's work.--- Possibly (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Possibly, Simple, I believe it is G11 borderline eligible but not irredeemably promotional, furthermore using the AFD method would come in handy(G4) when the article is invariably re-created in the future. Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I will buy that. Naked promotion of coin and bill counters Those preformed wrappers made it much easier to wrap and roll coins. In addition, beyond recognizing Pennies, Nickels, Dimes and Quarters like C100 does, it also recognizes Dollar Coins. really gets me.--- Possibly (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly, I perfectly understand your thought process but from my experience, in dealing with COI/UPE if an article is created by either of aforementioned, using an AFD is always the best approach, so in future when they eventually re-create, which you can bet that they would since there’s a vested interest, we would easily just zap it away with a G4. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that now, thank you.--- Possibly (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ARTSPAM that I came close to deleting under WP:G11, but it is not "totally promotional." (I have a higher threshold for CSD than some.) It does not have sufficient coverage in terms of breadth or depth to meet WP:CORP. Routine mentions mixed with company related sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail required to establish notability. Articles listing the best n bill or coin sorters isn't sufficient. Msnicki (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's advertising.--- Possibly (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might also note that a search found things like this (note the "publish PR" link) but no RS.--- Possibly (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but really no need to list in that many categories. Graywalls (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls, insofar as they apply, you are to notify all potentially interested groups. Celestina007 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a creator of this page, I would like to state that unfortunately I didn't know about the mandatory requirements to disclose an affiliation. I respect Wikipedia's policies and I will be as neutral as I can. We at Cassida are not here on Wikipedia to promote stuff, we simply want Cassida to be present on the most well known encyclopedia. I disclosed on my talk page that I am being paid for editing for Cassida. Is there anything else that needs to be done to prevent this page from being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassibri0615 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassibri0615, as of now? unfortunately nothing, they aren’t a notable organization and until they are, the article cannot be retained on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassibri0615: The deletion rationale is not the status of the creator, though as you've noticed, it rankles many. Subject does not meet WP:CORP, the inclusion requirement for organizations. Creating articles is hard. My first attempts were deleted as well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus it reads like an advertisement. Mmmmm, I sure hate it when corporations hire people to edit Wikipedia with their COI... AdoTang (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I've seen one (1) PAID editor created article that made me want to stand up and cheer. Unfortunately, many cannot make the change from advocational to encyclopedic writing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually did search for sources, but it looks like they paid to publish press releases via Parity media, and those releases have taken up all my patience of digging through to find sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP Devoke water 13:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 6 April 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 List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Arkansas. With no prejudice iff significant coverage can be found, but as it stands there is clear consensus that merging is the most appropriate outcome in this case. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian County Road 4G Bridge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The guideline at WP:NBUILD states there is a presumption of notability for assigned national heritage features for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available. However 1) a presumption is not a guarantee - it was included in this guideline because the vast majority of national heritage structures will meet GNG, but this one doesn't. It doesn't even merit a mention in its block nomination form 2) as both GEOLAND and WP:WHYN make clear, we need sufficient sourcing to write a proper article - a few sentences describing the location and simple statistics aren't enough. --Pontificalibus 16:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 16:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 16:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found this source [3]. I've also rescued the nomination form source which was broken. I'm unable to read the other two sources cited in the CALS source, if those have sufficient information it could be enough to keep this. Jumpytoo Talk 00:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge > List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Arkansas, until such time as NRHP thematic resource article or multiple property article Historic bridges of Arkansas is written.Djflem (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Arkansas. It's a 44-foot bridge with one paragraph to its name. AdoTang (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A listing on the NRHP is notable, there is probably a long-enough description in the nominating documents on file with the Parks Service. Article needs expansion but should be kept, for notability and heritage promotion. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but allow recreation if additional sources are found. The NHRP is a good indicator of notability but not a sole indicator. SportingFlyer T·C 11:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Arkansas. I was unable to find any secondary sources covering the bridge in depth. Page 7 of the nomination form for the bridge notes that the bridge is significant because it was built in 1940 and is typical of masonry/concrete bridges built during that time period. The form provides no historical information beyond the year it was built and the agency responsible and does nothing to distinguish this specific bridge from all of the other concrete/mason bridges built in the WWII era. None of these facts make me believe that additional sources exist, so a merge is the best option. (If my analysis turns out to be wrong though, I have no prejudice against re-creation). (In terms of the encyclopedia, language about the bridge itself is very scarce; it mainly consists of discussion about a county-wide effort to improve infrastructure. While I can't access two of the sources listed, they all appear to be primary sources associated with the WPA and and state agency responsible for inventorying roads and bridges. There really is just not much that an be said about the bridge). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolina Gillgren[edit]

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

Article subject requests deletion (OTRS Ticket 2021033010011832). Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG as lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if the subject requests deletion and they're not immediately and over the top notable I'm pro-deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The hurdle is WP:FILMMAKER and I don't see anything that comes close, the subjects request for deletion aside, the subject does not meet Wikipedia notability. Jeepday (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicomi Nix Turner[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NOTABILITY or WP:ARTIST. I can only find a few reliable sources about her or about exhibitions of her work, but I don't see enough substantial sources online that show notability:

Every other source I saw about her was a passing mention of an exhibit she was in.

Also, a side note (although this doesn't have to do with notability): my hunch is that the article was written by a WP:UPE or someone with a WP:COI, based off of the article creator's edits and content in the article. If it's kept, there definitely needs to be a rewrite. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whisperjanes seems to have better search skills than I do, because I did not see any independent coverage in a search.--- Possibly (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral First, I believe she has a swing at WP:NCREATIVE#3 due to her work on Emily the Strange, although she wasn't illustrating that for a very long time. There's also a lot of sources discussing her solo art exhibits such as this, this, and this. She's featured in a print magazine I can't access here. Also here is another artist citing her as an influence. She's a featured artist at the Museum for Urban Contemporary Art, which has a building so at least its not one of the online only art museums I found discussing her. I'm just not familiar enough with the art world to a) find more sources and b) know if this makes her notable as an artist. I think only two of the sources I dug up are mentioned above. Maybe I'll be able to find some time to get better at finding art critiques in the future, but for now I have no idea if she's notable or not. I'm really only posting to add some of these sources to the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Coverage does not seem sufficient to meet WP:NARTIST and higher level policies. Not every artist is notable. Sources SFR found above are a good start, however, but outside of the one niche source we can't access seem to fail SIGCOV (I define niche as not having an article on Wikipedia: Hi-Fructose was a red link I redirected to an article about the art movement it is mentioned in). Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. All the !votes were to keep, though most were just barely persuaded on this. BD2412 T 04:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Peerzada[edit]

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

Apart from Ref 6, BBC, which is a podcast i don't see any other WP:RS for SIGCOV. Plus the article was created by the subject himself as per Talk Page. If NAWARD is considered he has won an award, but as per NAWARD it's a failed proposal, So putting it up here at AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The weakest of week keep. First of all, this person works for BBC[4]. So I think the BBC reference cannot be considered as an independent source here. He can be considered notable if we are considering WP:ANYBIO as the subject is a winner of notable award in journalism. But there is no significant coverage as of now. If someone can come up with WP:THREE, I will change my vote. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is an interview with him, which does discuss the awards he's won, though I've been told interviews do not establish notability, which has always seemed odd since why would someone want to talk to someone they didn't think was notable to discuss their thoughts, work, etc. Here is coverage of him getting one of the awards. Primary source for the award, though that doesn't work on notability. This source discusses him getting the award as well, but I have doubts about the reliability, but this seems a bit more reliable. This covers the Red Ink award, and is more coverage. It's hard to find more coverage since searches for his name bring up news stories he's worked on, but I think he's over the bar with the awards and the coverage of the awards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ScottishFinnishRadish, Shouldn't we change the WP:NAWARD then? It states that it's a failed proposal. If NAWARD is considered then most of the article's meet wikipedia's policies because most of the article's establish the notability just because of the award. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jammumylove I'm working off GNG. Coverage of different events in multiple independent reliable sources. Those events just happen to be getting awards, but secondary sources saw fit to cover it in depth, therefore it's notable by our standards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, I had told you in several discussions that you dont need to consider NAWARD. We have something called ANYBIO. As per the one criteria in ANYBIO People are likely to be notable if he/she has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Please make sure you remeber this, next time while you nominate an article for AFD and please dont come up with the argument that NAWARD is a failed proposal in inappropriate places. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki, I Don't think an award makes you notable, And even if it does the correct policy to address the award would obviously be WP:NAWARD and not WP:ANYBIO. And if WP:NAWARD states that it's a failed proposal how would the same policy written in ANYBIO work? Set up an RfC if you have issues with me nominating article's for deletion on the basis of awards. Also how is AfD an inappropriate place? This is a deletion ' Discussion '. Hope you understand the meaning of word ' discussion ' . Also kindly stop replying to queries if i'm addressing them to someone else. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 05:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, if you think winning a reputed award does not make anyone notable, go to the talk page of WP:ANYBIO, propose the changes you would like make and reach consensus. Until then, you have to follow the guidelines regarding our notability. And I have never said that I have any issues with you nominating articles for deletion. I noticed that you always come with the argument NAWARD. So I politely requested you to stop it. But you are taking this as personal. This is a discussion and not your talk page. So I have the right to reply to anyone. So please try to be little bit more civil. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kashmorwiki, And i noticed you always come up with WP:ANYBIO. Please eloborate the point of Policy WP:NAWARD if it is totally useless as per you. It shouldn't exist right? This is not a PA, might be rude because you keep on repeating the same thing everytime. I'd ask you to put up an RfC for the same because as per my knowledge of policies i would definitely follow WP:NAWARD for anything related to awards, and not ANYBIO. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 06:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jammumylove, I think you have no idea about a failed proposal. The proposed NAWARD has no consensus as of now. So there is no point of you coming up with that. Your argument that winning a notable award does not makes anyone notable is totally ridiculous. See this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. C. Bhargava. This article was kept only because he won a significant national award. And I was the person who rescued it by coming up with this WP:ANYBIO. I still dont get what you are trying to prove here. I am arguing with an accepted proposal which you claim to have no significance. My vote here was weak keep. Because I think this award he won is not that much significant when compared to others. Also there is not that much sigcov. Somebody please help this user regardjng our notbility guidelines. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Barely passes WP:ANYBIO as for the winner of a notable award in journalism. I can see a few sources too like Kashmir Life, Radio Times and a few more which I think to pass him for WP:GNG too. Grailcombs (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepIt is famous to stay.--MadD ^(talk) 11:01, 8 April 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 I Can Make a Mess. As an WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas (EP)[edit]

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

This has been ripe for an AfD since 2011. A google search reveals nothing but a tracklisting. Probably redirect to I Can Make a Mess Like Nobody's Business. Noah ^💬 19:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 19:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 19:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are other, similarly named works so I can't find anything on this album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walter Görlitz Chirota (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walter Görlitz. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I Can Make a Mess: Barely found anything about the EP. Since the name has its own disambiguation page, a redirect to the band's page is the WP:ATD to go. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 April 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. While there are some arguments to keep the article, the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE comments are stronger. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Weiss[edit]

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

Per request of subject's representative. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE#Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects. Possibly also deletable as WP:ARTSPAM with WP:COATRACKed sourcing. Per discussion here and Special:permalink/1015119313ce#Unblock for editing/deletion of page --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose the subject doesn't like the "malpractice" section of the article. That said, this is built almost entirely from primary sources and there is little to indicate this person is actually notable. I much prefer low-profile people trying to have their article deleted than creating one as an advertisement. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Per WP:LOWPROFILE, the subject is not "low profile", as he has routinely given interviews as an expert to the media and sought out interviews. --Kbabej (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that in a greatly technical sense, my apologies. I meant his notability isn't spanking obvious; quite the opposite, actually, since interviews about a subject matter of expertise and being sought for an opinion aren't in depth coverage of the person. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The subject coined the term intimacy anorexia, which has its own article on WP and coverage from Good Morning America here; has book reviews online, including from Palo Alto Online here; and has coverage on another book on ABC here. The subject also isn't eschewing the spotlight; in fact, here he is talking about sex addiction and the Atlanta shooting for USA Today. --Kbabej (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the research by User:Kbabej and arguments compelling. Looks like they meet WP:AUTHOR "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Jeepday (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree with Kbabej and Jeepday that this "intimacy anorexia" concept justifies a BLP per WP:AUTHOR. Weiss' book on the subject is ten years old, but the term doesn't seem have been adopted in the scientific literature. In fact, the article intimacy anorexia should probably be deleted as well, per WP:1R. I find it particularly weird that the definition of the term cites the official-sounding American Association for Sex Addiction Therapy, which in fact seems to be nothing but a one-man frontend for Weiss's counseling clinic. Back in 2019 I tagged the article with a ((COI)). Both the Douglas Weiss and intimacy anorexia articles were created in large parts by single-purpose accounts Cml442, Designje, and Shoop719, and two Colorado Springs-based IPs 73.3.212.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 98.245.69.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which is where Weiss seems to be located per his website). Except for the "malpractice" section that is, which was added in December 2020 by a Los Angeles-based IP 12.198.166.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and which is why the subject himself seems to be requesting deletion now.
Long story short: both articles feel a lot like WP:SOAPBOX and should be deleted. And the whole story could be archived as a cautionary tail for WP:FAMOUS. --bender235 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term has been covered by Healthline; Good Morning America; and YourTango. Those three publications are notable publications on their own, and there's other coverage out there as well. I think it's covered well enough for the subject to have a page. --Kbabej (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree, especially since all three of those sources are directly linked to the subject. --bender235 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:PROF. First off, a reputable psychologist does not use the term "sex addiction", which is not in the DSM-5; that and other peculiar phrases require a total re-write. Secondly, I don't see how this person passes the professor test: there's nothing that indicates it in the article at all. Finally, writing a book does not guarantee inclusion here -- everybody knows in 2021 that we are not a web host. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 7 April 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 Moi Caprice. As WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summerfool[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable reliable sources can be found on the topic (fails WP:GNG) and also clearly does not meet WP:NALBUM. **A glitch caused the previous nomination to not show the rationale or the categories which is why I closed it** Ajshul 😃 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😃 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😃 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist. Band itself is barely notable. I redirected the other albums to the artist. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to moi Caprice. This EP received no reviews or other reliable coverage, and is only visible in the usual streaming and directory sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to moi Caprice as per doomsdayer520. Grailcombs (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ajshul 😃 18:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by the nominator due to a glitch when nominating. My apologies. See the new nomination with rationale and categories correctly loaded. Ajshul 😃 18:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summerfool[edit]

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

No notable reliable sources can be found on the topic (fails WP:GNG) and also clearly does not meet WP:NALBUM. Ajshul 😃 18:26, 30 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 16:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thurn and Taxis line of succession[edit]

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

This is a line of succession to the defunct princely throne. Precedent has established such articles are to be deleted (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32, 33). JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing to succeed to, hasn't been sovereign for over 200 years, hasn't been a noble family that would have a meaningful head for over 100 years. As such, it is alternative history, pseudo-crystal balling what the rules of succession would be now had it persisted, yet it is not self evident that nothing would have changed (e.g. status of morganatic marriages, succession by females, both of which have been changed in some persisting monarchies over the same time period). Plus the precedent. Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single source given is a genealogical directory not a line of succession. Original research. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Agricolae, rules of succession for nonexistent thrones are fantasy. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 16:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Agricolae and per WP:GAMEOFNONEXISTENTTHRONES. (Deletion is coming.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and fails GNG Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- at worst redirect to Thurn und Taxis. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They haven't been soverign since the fall of the HRE, clear concensus from previous discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 13:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Make believe, over a 100 years after house is defunct.PrisonerB (talk) 11:49, 6 April 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 16:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Van Raemdonck[edit]

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

PhD candidate with 3 papers is far from meeting WP:NPROF, and a few interviews isn't really enough to meet WP:GNG. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The interviews give her some notability, but not quite enough it seems. Delete per nomination and other comments. X-Editor (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current sourcing does not establish GNG. Vikram Vincent 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. Ajshul 😃 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "interviews" are just her providing background information and her opinion on particular platforms; they are not nearly numerous enough to satisfy C7 and are not in-depth coverage of her. JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found for this doctoral student. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. way, way WP:TOOSOON, see her GS. --hroest 01:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PhD candidates are usually not yet notable — in unusual cases people can become notable for scholarly accomplishments made while they were a PhD student, but by the time those accomplishments become recognized, they're generally no longer a student. And in this case we don't even have any hint that her student accomplishments are yet on track to become notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 13:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely TOOSOON, given she hasn't even gotten her PhD yet; NPROF is not met. --Kbabej (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even remotely close to making this hater of her political opponents and advocate of destroying the freedom of speech notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert AfD is not an outlet for your personal political opinions, please keep your politics out of here. --hroest 13:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Barwis[edit]

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

Blatant WP:PROMO exercise for individual who fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. KidAd • SPEAK 17:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tried to axe most of the promotional material. The subject just might barely be notable by virtue of his work with professional teams, but I encourage veryone to beware of the sheer amount of churnalism out there. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Believe it or not, the article was even more promotional before I toned it down some time ago. His notability is borderline; however, the article needs a complete re-write anyway. I say delete it for now, but leave the door open if any editor would like to start from scratch and recreate it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have substantial coverage and the TV show doesn't appear to be significant either. Not notable.Lesscynical (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of his actions and none of the coverage adds up to notability. Not every paid staff member on a college football coaching staff is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 6 April 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 16:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ute, Nevada[edit]

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

Found in CAT:NN cleanup. Agree with Cxbrx who placed the notability tag: between the topographic maps and WP:BEFORE, this seems to have been a railroad siding and crossing, not a community. Coverage is pretty trivial, and without a community at the site, WP:GEOLAND is not met. Hog Farm _Talk 15:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 15:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 15:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest turning it inside-out and making it about the Tiffany Minerals Company of Moapa, except that I cannot find that documented in depth. As I suspect already noted by Cxbrx, all of the sources are really about the geology (and not the geology of the railway either) and this stuff is largely a collection of asides. I went looking and turned up much the same stuff and no more. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete There are some foundations consistent with some sort of industrial operation there, but topos show a passing siding (which is still there), and that appears to have been the rail point's primary purpose. At any rate, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete As per my comments in the talk pages: "Ute is probably not notable. It appears that there was a mill there, but there is no evidence of anyone living at that location. https://newspapers.com did not come up with much. Google books has a few references that refer to the siding. WP:STATION applies, so lacking multiple non-trivial sources, Ute is probably not notable." Cxbrx (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good sources, was never an actual settlement, and a mining company having a brief presence in the area doesn't mean much. AdoTang (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Tamkin[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. There is a more detailed draft which also does not establish biographical notability. This article cannot be moved to draft space, but the draft can be kept if this article is deleted. Neither this article nor a naïve Google search shows significant coverage by independent sources. Naïve Google search shows that she has written a biography of George Soros. We knew that, and it does not establish notability as an author. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTHOR, Tamkin does not appear to have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work," and I have only found reviews from Kirkus and Publishers Weekly, which were in the article, and this does not appear to be the necessary "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," and similarly, per WP:JOURNALIST, there appears to be evidence that she is a journalist, but not that she meets the guideline, and it does not appear she has received WP:BASIC secondary coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Strike !vote per pburka's comment. Beccaynr (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Chirota (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. I agree. --Greysonsarch (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or move to The Influence of Soros. Her book is notable, having been reviewed by Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Times of Israel, Jewish Insider, and The Critic. For sole authors of one notable book, my inclination is to keep the author's page and redirect the book, but the other way around works, too. pburka (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've written a short essay about why it's preferable to have an article about the author and a redirect from the title of her notable book. pburka (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment Kirkus and Publishers Weekly are independent reliable sources. in addition you have coverage, with interview by the Atlantic Council, and Jewish News of Northern California. Hartsseeks (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeping would mean that notability was inherited from the book, but the book doesn't even have it's article (that's like a negative double whammy for notability). The article on the book can be started independently. It's not immediately clear that the present content would form a satisfactory article on the book, but it is immediately clear that the subject isn't notable on it's own merits. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- wp:NAUTHOR - 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Hartsseeks (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would support keeping it if we also had an article about her book? If that's your position, I'll be happy to create that page. pburka (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR because she has "created [...] a [...] well-known work [...] [that has] been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; as noted above, this includes Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and The Times of Israel, which provides additional in-depth context on the book, and The Critic, which also mentions some background on Tamkin as a journalist. Beccaynr (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited. Riteboke (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you arguing that artists aren't notable for producing notable art? That contradicts WP:NAUTHOR#3 and WP:ANYBIO#2. pburka (talk) 15:50, 13 April 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 -- withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 01:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lamyai Haithongkham[edit]

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

It sounds like a promotion and is very stubby and just not a very good article in general. I don't think it is well-received either. xdude (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — What the hell? A high profile singer in Thailand! Plenty of significant coverage both included in the article and per search with her Thai name ลำไย ไหทองคำ [5]. WP:GNG is met. For WP:NSINGER criteria is met or not, I left for Thai editors! Cheers VocalIndia (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A high profile singer in Thailand, but not in America. WP:NSINGER is not inherently met, as her awards are not incredibly prestigious. Her record label is not big either. None of her albums are on Wikipedia. And finally, only music magazines mention her, no big books of "Best Thai Artists" or reliable sources. xdude (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator you can not !vote as well. Change to Comment.BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A high profile singer in Thailand, but not in America is not a valid deletion rationale. We do not write articles based off of what is popular in the US. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No actual reason for deletion given. AfD is not for clean-up. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who cares if she’s not big in Iowa? Passes WP:GNG. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. You've all been quite harsh and had your fun. Keep. But the tone was very self-advertising I think. xdude (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meerut Institute of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

A page that relies on only primary sources. Fails NSCHOOLS as there are no RS available with a BEFORE Vikram Vincent 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it meets GNG, no independent sources. Eldumpo (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. Fails GNG. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 14:51, 2 April 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 Fuck#Early usage. Sandstein 07:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Fuckebythenavele[edit]

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

There's zero indication that this individual is separately notable from fuck. All sources discuss this individual in relation to a contention that their name represents the oldest known usage of fuck, and it only deserves a brief mention in Fuck#Early_usage where it is already mentioned. Otherwise there is nothing to say about this person other than that they were declared an outlaw, which isn't enough to justify an article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under section 2 of WP:PERP, I would argue the nature of the crime is sufficiently unusual enough and there has been sustained coverage of him beyond the casual mention in the court rolls. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis for characterizing his crime as "unusual" in any way - we don't even know what his crime was (Booth: "it is impossible to know what it was as he must have been referred from a lower court"). The only documented infraction is 'failure to appear when summoned to court' for whatever his original crime was, and that is incredibly mundane. If anything, WP:PERP would indicate this should be covered on another page if one exists, and one does, and he is already covered there. Agricolae (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is supported by a small scholarly report on this individual, and the historical/linguistic ramifications of his case. A number of articles have been written in the popular press. This is sufficient to meet GNG the requirements, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I could imagine us choosing to follow Hemiauchenia's suggestion that we place this information in Fuck#Early_usage, but I prefer a standalone article where any additional scholarship on this case in particular will be placed. -Darouet (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the argument that there isn't WP:SIGCOV, there clearly is, I am just not sure there is enough to say about them to justify a standalone article. If someone wants to give the article the Lewis (baseball) treatment to get this to FA they can be my guest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia: sure. It seems clear though that the article isn't just about Roger, but is also about early usage of the word "fuck." I understand we have other places in Wikipedia where this is reviewed, but my view is that the topic is a substantial one, so having smaller articles on aspects of early usage is not only acceptable, but preferable. For that reason I think we should keep this. I don't support having standalone Wikipedia articles about zillions of random cartoon or sitcom characters, but small, well-written articles about etymology and the development of language are a plus here. -Darouet (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about etymology and language development perhaps, but it is a bit fine-grained to have a separate article on each individual known early usage. Agricolae (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG should determine what articles are written: if there's sufficient coverage, a topic deserves its own article. -Darouet (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But an article should be written about what the coverage is actually about. In this case, the coverage isn't really about Roger, who remains entirely obscure, just a person who didn't show up at court and who had a funny nickname - the coverage is about an early usage of 'fuck'. That makes the early usage of 'fuck' the relevant topic, not Roger. GNG also does not make an article mandatory even when there is significant coverage, it recognized that in some cases organizational imperatives render it preferable to cover a topic on an existing page rather than hyper-fragmenting information. There is nothing to be said about Roger on a stand-alone page that can't be said (and isn't already said) in a sentence or two about Roger on Fuck#Early usage. There is no real benefit to putting the small amount of known information about this individual on a separate page and then bulking it out with material about other early instances of 'fuck' that have no relevance to its subject, Roger, as has been done with this article. Including it in Fuck#Early usage is both sufficient and preferable, and perfectly consistent with GNG. Agricolae (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae - I really think there's no harm in keeping this article, even if, as you correctly point out, the topic is mostly early usage of the word "fuck." That said, I realize that Fuck isn't actually that large of an article. One option is just to put this information there and if Fuck#Early usage gets too large, to make a separate article about early usage of the term. -Darouet (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is effectively WP:1E. As per nom he has no notability independent of Fuck#Early usage, and that article repeats (almost) the entire content relevant to Roger. Even the article, in referring to John le Fucker and Ric Wyndfuck, is essentially representing itself as a content fork/mirror of Fuck#Early usage. The material on Wyndfuck is currently not found in Fuck#Early usage, and might be added were it clear this has been discussed by philologists rather than being the the WP:OR of the editor who added it to the Roger page. That said, the article John le Fucker is similarly situated, having a very brief reference to him as a person and then the rest is philology - just based on the amount of text, these articles are both clearly about the philology of Fuck and only secondarily about the individual historical Fuckers. If there is to be a spinoff, it would be better to spin off Early usages of Fuck rather than making separate articles for each instance that are all really about Fuck. Agricolae (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Agricolae. This is not grist for a standalone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanistani (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A hypothetical question: If another individual were found with the same surname, with a similar lack of further biographical information, would he or she merit another article? Or be included in this one? Or excluded as off-topic? I suspect that an answer to this question might indicate what this article is really about, and thus perhaps allow people to draw a conclusion as to whether an article is merited at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, it's an insulting joke name from the early 1300s. If it turned out that this was more commonly used, perhaps the article would be renamed to "Fuckebythenavele" to describe specific mentions of this medieval insult. -Darouet (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it is an article about an insult applied to an individual, rather than a biography? How does this insult meet Wikipedia notability standards? I assume WP:GNG applies, and there isn't a specific notability guideline for such topics? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merely describing this article as a biography would be absurd, since the reason Roger has garnered academic and press attention is because of the discovery that he was insulted by a court in one of the earliest known instances of the use of the highly popular curse word, "fuck." Similarly, merely describing the article as describing once instance of an insult being hurled would also be absurd: such a description ignores the obvious interest people will have in the early use and etymology of the English language's most popular profanity. The article, as written right now, is partly about the incident, partly about the document that revealed it, and partly about early usage of "fuck." Given the coverage available, that seems appropriate. And yes, I agree that GNG, while sometimes imperfect, is the best guide. -Darouet (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fuck#Early usage. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could go along with this, essentially a null merge. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Agricolae. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fuck#Early usage. Having such an article is liable to lead to some one tagging it as a stub, but we today almost certainly know nothing of the man apart from the court case. This appears to be from a period before all surnames became fixed; and his may have been known by another surname by his friends. Apart from being a early occurrence of the f-word. We would certainly regard the man as utterly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, avoiding the navel, to Fuck#Early usage.PrisonerB (talk) 11:51, 6 April 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 Grenada–United States relations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Grenada, Washington, D.C.[edit]

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

Was the subject of a previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Grenada in Washington, D.C.) in 2013, the result was redirect/merge to Grenada–United States relations. In 2017 the article was recreated but it still doesn't address the issues for which it was originally deleted, which is that embassies are not inherently notable. Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GEOFEAT. Dan arndt (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grenada–United States relations per prior discussion and this nom. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for reasons above. AdoTang (talk) 13:10, 30 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 Papua New Guinea–United States relations. Sandstein 07:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Papua New Guinea in Washington, D.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was the subject of a previous AfD in 2013, the result was redirect/merge to Papua New Guinea–United States relations. In 2017 the article was recreated but it still doesn't address the issues for which it was originally deleted, which is that embassies are not inherently notable. Fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GEOFEAT. Dan arndt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Papua New Guinea–United States relations per prior discussion and this nom ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for reasons above. AdoTang (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Burstyn[edit]

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

At first glance, this looks to be a very well sourced article on a highly notable footballer but, upon closer inspection, cracks start to appear. He has played in the fourth tier of Sweden, which is three divisions below the professional level and likely amateur. The article then alleges that he has received offers from Icelandic third tier and Spanish fourth tier clubs before signing for a fourth tier American club, none of this indicative of WP:NFOOTBALL. The claims of being 'very close' to playing for The Philippines but falling short because of 'paperwork issues' are effectively unsourced.

When we remove all of the Blogspot, Facebook, forum posts and other non-WP:RS, there are no effective references remaining. Searching Steve Burstyn and Steven Burstyn isn't coming back with anything decent. The only news story that I could find was a Fastbreak article about eating ice-cream. Fails WP:GNG as far as I can see. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never made an appearance nationally and played in the fourth division in a very minor league. –Cupper52^Discuss! 15:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per evidence presented by Spiderone. Unnotable subject. Note that I have nominated the image used for deletion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steven Burstyn UC Berkeley WCSA.jpg, as a different photographer is indicated at the metadata. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Johnny[edit]

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

Has never managed or played in a league listed at WP:FPL, therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. The only source that I can find that mentions him, is this Borneo Post article, which says that he is the new youth development officer at Sabah. Sabah is playing in the top tier now (it wasn't back when he was a player for them between 2005 and 2008) but youth development officer is not a significant enough role to make him notable by default. More importantly, I can't see any evidence that Johnny passes WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of GNG, fails NFOOTY JW 1961^Talk 08:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has never held a position that would lead to him being notable under the guidelines on football notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laerta[edit]

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

Per Robert McClenon - "Promotional stub on child model. The references show that the subject has been publicized by her parents and other agents, but no significant coverage by independent reliable sources." LJF2019 ^talk 11:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LJF2019 ^talk 11:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. LJF2019 ^talk 11:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clearcut un-notable, as well as having been (terribly) created by a sock. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No questions here, quite clear-cut case. No real coverage or RS. --hroest 14:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About as non-notable as it gets. Athel cb (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable child model. No significant coverage by independent reliable sources found. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable sources seen. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior, but I do caution people to keep in mind their tone when the subject is someone who could viably read the debate, especially if that someone is a child. Dismissively talking about how unimportant and insignificant -- which is what "non-notable" sounds like to a non-Wikipedian -- a kid who can very well read you is comes across pretty harsh. Vaticidalprophet 02:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per others, delete it.--Alcremie (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite her "cool and creative style", the subject does not meet GNG or NMODEL. --Kbabej (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Meyer[edit]

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

Meyer has spent the majority of her career in the lower tiers, most recently in the 4th tier, the Oberliga for Eintracht Braunschweig. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL according to DFB, WF and Soccerway.

Coverage found in searches is almost entirely trivial match report coverage. I found this in a local paper about her goals for Braunschweig, which contains a quote from her. Fansoccer and NRHZ mention her a few times but the coverage has no depth. The coverage needs to address Meyer directly and in depth to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:20, 31 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 Draftify. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Awaaz Suno[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable unreleased film that has already been created and deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meri Awaaz Suno.

This is an unreleased film, and the language in the film notability guidelines on films that are in production is poorly written, but films fall into three classes as to state of production:

1. Films that have been produced, for which notability is based on reviews, reception, etc.
2. Films that are in production, which are normally not notable unless production satisfies general notability. This part of the guideline is often contentious.
3. Films that have not begun production, coverage of which would be crystal ball gazing.

This appears to fall into the second class, but there is nothing in the article about production except a statement that it has started, which is not much.

Naïve Google search mostly is about Meri Aawaz Suno. If Meri Awaaz Suno were notable, hatnotes would be needed. But it isn't notable. It is just an incomplete film with a deleted article.

This article was nominated for deletion once, and was soft-deleted, and was promptly reposted by the same author, and was deleted as G4. I initially tagged it for another G4, but have reverted that, and will nominate it again. These reposts are tendentious. Recommend Extended-Confirmed protection so that, when the film is released, a reviewer can accept a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was soft delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2021-02 ✗ soft delete

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create, 2021-03 ✗ G4, 2021-03 ✗ deleted, 2021-03 ✗ deleted, 2021-02 ✗ deleted, 2021-02 move to → Draft:Meri Awaaz Suno

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: there's plausible value to the existing content if the film garners attention on its release. Delete as second choice. If it's deleted, ECP would be a good measure, but the repeated creator should be engaged in discussion so they know what problems they are causing and how to approach things in a better way. — Bilorv (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Bilorv, except leaning delete first choice, draftify second. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. Riteboke (talk) 08:38, 13 April 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 List of Hampshire County Cricket Club first-class players. The consensus appears to have become clearer after the relisting. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W. P. Bailey[edit]

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

full name and dates of birth and death unknown, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes has only played 1 FC match (still passes WP:NCRIC in its current form), but it was for Hampshire in the County Championship. He played in the second match in their history. While there's an internet source doesn't reveal much, there is likely offline coverage, given it was the first season in Hampshire's history, and Hampshire being a historic county for the foundation of cricket due to the Hambledon club. Hampshire's club historian has covered this period quite a fair bit, so it's highly likely something exists. List of Hampshire County Cricket Club first-class players exists if needed for WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rugbyfan22. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hampshire's cricket historian didn't have much luck finding out who he was judging by this. StickyWicket (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Hampshire County Cricket Club first-class players. Fails WP:GNG; there is also entirely insufficient information to merit a standalone article, and almost no hope of finding any, irrespective of the trivial pass of NCRIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Hampshire page seems prudent here, if not outright deletion. There's not enough here GNG-wise for a stand-alone article, and he only marginally passes an extremely inclusive SNG. Definitely do not keep as a stand-alone, he clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on analysis of Rugbyfan22. 2603:7000:2143:8500:BC29:39D3:B962:8854 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving time for finding possibly existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG for which NCRIC is simply meant to be guide, in this case a guide that fails due to the evident lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:WHYN are clear that we can't base biographies on mere statistics. I have seen no evidence that newspapers in the 1860s provided in-depth biographies of occasional cricketers, and given that the team's own historian hasn't found in-depth coverage it's a safe bet it doesn't exist.----Pontificalibus 12:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. County Championship cricketer, sure newspaper coverage exists too. Will have a look for it. StickyWicket (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked newspapers.com and britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk and didn't find anything. I find it hard to see how he could have garnered significant coverage in newspapers not archived on those sites, yet nothing in those that are.----Pontificalibus 09:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per SF and Pontificalibus. NCRIC is completely irrelevant when GNG is demonstrably failed -- where could SIGCOV of this marginal cricketer possibly exist if the Hampshire historian can't even find anything??? JoelleJay (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hampshire County Cricket Club first-class players. Given the amount written about Hampshire players, if we can't find anything out about the chap I really don't think we can have a standalone page on him at this stage. If information turns up, we can roll back the redirection. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:44, 5 April 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 07:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Study.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2016, but the present content is more extensive and would require a second AfD. Remains highly promotional, the only contribution of its presumably paid ditor. DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it clearly meets WP:GNG. versacespace talk to me 17:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @VersaceSpace, you don’t say how how exactly they “clearly meet GNG”? you got any links to RS that shows they “clearly meet GNG”? Celestina007 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: the listed references demonstrate notability. versacespace talk to me 23:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VersaceSpace, oh? Is that right? Could you provide us amongst the listed references any WP:THREE that shows or substantiates their notability? Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: refs 4, 8, 10, 11. And stop talking down to me while you're at it. versacespace talk to me 23:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4 #8 and #11 are not the national networks, but a local edition of the network, reporting in a promotional manner on a local program affecting a trivial number of people. #9 similarly. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — Per G11 as an overt promotional article. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant spam, no evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ty Dean Smith[edit]

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

Subject (I haven't confirmed identity) has requested deletion via OTRS, and I don't think he meets the requirements of WP:GNG, with a lack of significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:BIODELETE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no need to hold someone hostage to their inflated teenage vanity 14 years later - WP:BIODELETE. Cabayi (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting Special:Diff/516604260 and after some research of my own, I agree. Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all opinions above. --- Possibly (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no sources that talk about him, GNews only has hits about parts of his name. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 13:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No lasting notability even without taking WP:BIODELETE into account. --Kbabej (talk) 19:01, 5 April 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 The Rise of the Synths. Consensus not to have a standalone; plausible search term though so redirecting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synth Rider[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article is for a fictional character that appears in a obscure film. Sources do not indicate notability. LJF2019 ^talk 08:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV Chirota (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, no real coverage, just a character in a documentary. AdoTang (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this character has it's importance in the pop-culture aspects of the 80s subculture and mainstream adoption (as part of the synthwave movement).

The film is an indie film but not obscure or unknown and has been covered in press like The Guardian (including the character). I've added those, Is that enough or should I find something else?

According the their IMDB, it has been showcased at A-Festival like International Film Festival of Rotterdam and BAFICI (Argentina), and pre-sold to Spanish broadcaster Movistar.

The term #synthrider was adopted by the synthwave and retrowave community (which is a niche community but a largely worldwide subculture) and it started to popup in 2016-2017 in artists and electronic retro fans alike. Are the links to the hasthtags relevant?

Also, "Synth riders" was a term adopted later from a company making a video game, associated to the 80s retro subculture. That's why it seems relevant to point where the term actually comes from.Lckid77 (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to The Rise of the Synths - Minor fictional character without sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an independent article, separate from the film it originated from. Only a couple of the references currently in the article are from reliable sources, and those are all on the movie as a whole, either just briefly mentioning the character, or not even talking about it at all. It could be a reasonable redirect to the main article on the movie, though, where the character, as well as the small bits of sourced information, are already discussed. Rorshacma (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Garrett (soccer)[edit]

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

Looks very much like promotional/resume article. I just don't see how it can meet NFOOTY. Indoor soccer is not in scope, as I understand. Allegedly, he spent a season in USL in 1984-85, but the only source is offline and no caps/goals given. Fails GNG too, in my opinion. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Super promotional, not sure how this survived over a decade. I can't find anything from a newspaper search from the period when he was playing. Fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 09:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Miami Herald article used as reference:[6]. From OCR printout, it list his name as scoring in the penalty shoot out to decide game. Also found an already clipped Palm Beach Post article with same info [7]. Listed in lineup for another game [8], so he played multiple games. Article about SoccerZone business he founded[9]. Major problem with keeping article as is, is almost nothing is sourced for the amount of content in it. Between the two references in article now, it only confirms he played for the Storm and coached Toledo Pride, the Secondwavemedia article from external links has info about SoccerZone/Let's Play. Finding more sources definitely needed for WP:GNG, but if we looking at just WP:NFOOTY he passes the played in match between fully professional teams. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 6 April 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 07:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancesterology[edit]

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

This seems a complete WP:NEOLOGISM, invented by one person a few years ago and not gained any wider support, as all sources (the very few that one can find) trace back to that. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V, likely also WP:OR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ancesterology (also Ancestorology) is a research methodology used to study the African Diaspora through the interdisciplinary lenses of history, cultural anthropology and visual studies. Ancesterology uses a qualitative design approach to analyze evidence such as (participant) observation, lived experiences, interviews, textual analysis and abductive reasoning to answer questions that cannot be otherwise answered by quantitative data. Are you suggesting that history, anthropology and visual studies do not have valid research methods because that is the basis for Ancesceteroloy? Getting distracted by the term conflicts with the theory and methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracethetrade (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have seen the term used for decades, casually, occasionally, informally and somewhat tongue in cheek, by genealogists of all stripes to make what they do sound less mundane (or to avoid being confused with gynecologists). The specific application here, first applied just 4 years ago and its specific use only referenced to the coiner's own writings, is definitely neologistic. The described techniques comprising this 'ancestorology' are all part and parcel of standard high-quality genealogy as applied to difficult cases, independent of socio-cultural background, rather than being unique to the target community's problematic history, so maybe redirect to genealogy? Agricolae (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not "Africa" related as the African diaspora is widespread. This term has been around for several decades but it lacked the credibility of a theory and method and is spelled with the suffix, "or". Misconstruing this as a genealogical term undermines the method as a valid research process that can be replicated while researching the African diaspora.--Tracethetrade (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not misconstruing it as a genealogical term, when the term has been used by genealogists for a long time. Agricolae (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I prodded the article about a week ago, when none of the sourcing even mentioned the term. Now, the only source which mentions the term is a "definition" by the person who invented the term. All the rest don't even speak about it. Thus, it appears to be WP:SYNTH. Searches turned up a single in-depth mention of the term, again, that is the term's inventor's page. As such fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Basically just "what did this person of African descent do?". Or at least I think that's what it means, because this entire article is confusing and unusually verbose. Plus, yeah, no sources. AdoTang (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's myopic, ""what did this person of African descent do?" and technically applies to Van Gogh but completely misses the point of reflection and contributions to humanity. Turning on a light or AC, riding down a railroad, using GPS, turning on your gas stove (ref: gas pipelines)is a direct result of the contributions that are uncovered through this methodology. I thought only biographies had to be "notable"? Csikszentmihalyi's theory does not apply here. Is this a valid, peer-reviewed source by a credible publisher? https://brill.com/view/book/9789004446120/BP000002.xml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracethetrade (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, can we get on the same level here? What is this page about exactly, Trace? AdoTang (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is a valuative science that is used to identify the presence of African in non-African nations. It is a decolonial, not post-colonial research methodo--Tracethetrade (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)logy. Valuative means to consider other sources of information such as food, ctoms, language, semioptics, in addition to "official records."[reply]
Delete GScholar only has articles she's written as sources for the term, Jstor has none. I don't think the term has gained traction. No third party sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can someone provide a comment on the guidelines?

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

--Tracethetrade (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues here. 1) it says 'sources', plural. Here we really only have one source, Royston's book, giving any detailed coverage to the term (there is a second cite, but it is just to a website hosting a chapter of the same book). 2) An important word here left unaddressed is "independent". In general, when we only have a single source coining, if not the word itself then at least the specific usage of it, and all we have to cite is the author's own writings, then that is non-independent. We want to know that there is an agreed upon set of facts, a common description, coming from multiple sources that are independent of each other as well as independent of the specific source. Agricolae (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - JSTOR is a good source for articles and book reviews, it is not the only source for articles and book reviews and of course it has no international presence in the way that Oxford might. GScholar is not peer reviewed, but texts are thoroughly vetted if the publisher is reputable. The word anceterology appears in this 1999 dissertation [10], and does not present the word as a genealogical term but rather a historical methodology. The corresponding manuscript is here here. Don't know what a third party means in your view, but if word usage is claim, the owners of these sites did not get the memo.

The word is not a new invention as DoubleGrazing suggests. These website examples are limited to use of the word. Ancestorology is a research method driven by a decolonial theory.--Tracethetrade (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the word itself is nothing new. However, of the three websites you list here, numbers 1 & 2 are the not independent of each other, they are just the blog and homepage for the exact same professional genealogist who is using the term simply as a synonym for generic genealogy. #3 is independent of 1 & 2, but again, there is no indication that they are doing anything but local Missouri genealogy that is unrelated to the African diaspora. Citing people using the same term to mean something different really doesn't really make a case for this usage being established. Indeed, if anything it argues against it. Agricolae (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any third party sources and fails WP:GNG. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 02:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genealogy. The methodology described is not unique to those of African heritage. I suspect there is useful research done into genomes to determine what part of Africa a person's slave ancestors was shipped from, but otherwise nothing much different from any other genealogy. I doubt there is anything worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is whole "debate/conversation" is utter nonsense. Delete the entry and move on.--Tracethetrade (talk) 18:47, 4 April 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 Kanjikode. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity School, Kanjikode[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No Reliable Sources found with a WP:BEFORE. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any in-depth coverage of this school. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Kanjikode, where it is mentioned. Deletion would be suitable, otherwise. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, if only per WP:CHEAP. This school seems to lack even the usual routine coverage; it fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to target already identified. Since it's mentioned there and clearly isn't notable enough on it's own for a separate article. Plus, as the last "voter" says, redirects are cheap and it might be a viable search term. So there's really no reason to not redirect it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 31 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 Roblox#Murder Mystery 2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Mystery 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is no reliable sources and popular Roblox games has it’s own wiki. Kaseng55 (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kaseng55 (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources there, no sources here. IceWelder [✉] 06:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, plus there's already a list of popular games on Roblox (which I feel like should be removed anyways; that's really just advertising if you think about it, plus there are hundreds of games on Roblox that can be deemed "popular", and popularity can change). AdoTang (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this would be better suited into the Roblox article rather than being separate which doesn't inherit enough notability. Kline | vroom vroom 15:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete – I believe this is worthy of a redirect only because of how popular the game is on the site. I don't support indiscriminately creating redirects for every Roblox game under the sun, but this appears to be one of the most popular games of all time on the site and would therefore probably be a reasonable search term by e.g. a parent wanting to learn more about what their child is playing. However, it in no way merits its own article, and it could be argued its inclusion as a redirect would drown out more relevant search terms in the search bar. I would therefore support the creation of a redirect to the article Roblox or outright deletion, but lean toward the former. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roblox#Murder Mystery 2, it is already covered in that section, and that section already covers everything reliable sources have said about the game, making a merge unnecessary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect by either deleting the article or redirecting it Roblox#Murder Mystery 2 which is a section on the article Roblox that already has a bit of information on the game. Seeing as the game is popular on Roblox, I say we redirect the article to that section, rather than outright delete it. However, I don't think we should create and redirect all the articles with names of Roblox games that don't warrant there own articles to the article about Roblox. Just redirect articles with the names of noteable Roblox games such as Muder Mystery 2.
Keep, many Roblox-related things have an article and Murder Mystery 2 is a popular game on the platform. Moreover, I think that we need to create articles on other Roblox and non-Roblox games, such as Jailbreak, Bee Swarm Simulator and Work at a Pizza Place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a0d:6fc0:6d5:6900:3c16:b919:9882:153b (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity ≠ notability. Please review WP:GNG. IceWelder [✉] 18:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Devonian Wombat. The history section is pointless cruft, the lead doesn't say much that isn't already covered in the main Roblox article, and I cannot see anything in the gameplay section that needs to be kept (and it's all unsourced anyway). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect redirect or delete. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 14:09, 2 April 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. Consensus was that the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC.

The locality of coverage does not seem too relevant here (only slightly relevant here due to WP:SPORTCRIT) unless the subject is an organization.

Finally a cricketer that is kept. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Trump[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have found confirmation in some school directories that there was a "G. Trump" variously a principal and headmaster at what was then Edington School in the early 1980s, but no confirmation that that person is this person. Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/weak redirect to List of Devon County Cricket Club List A players Has only played 1 List-A match, however he had a significant minor counties career of over 100 appearances, captaining the side. Searching brought up a few snippets of information on him, but probably not enough to meet significant coverage, however due to his significant career sources may well exist offline or locally. Currently I'd say redirect as a suitable WP:ATD exists, however if more can be found happy to change my vote. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Following article updates and great research from below, it looks like he passes GNG with his combined cricketing and educational exploits. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Founder of Appleford School and an educational psychologist, in addition to his cricket. StickyWicket (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does your information come from that these are the same people? Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Given what's stated in the article about the specialist school, seems almost certain they're the same person [11]. StickyWicket (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article states a completely different school to the one that you've claimed, and cites no source. So you have not, in fact, found any confirmation for what you are asserting and have not actually found this information anywhere apart from misreading the school in the article at hand and linking it to something from the wrong school that says nothing about cricket? Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Appleford School's account doesn't match contemporary newspaper reports, unless it is a different person, which seems unlikely. I found an article in the Central Somerset Gazette, 21 April 1972 discussing the foundation of Chalice School by Peter Moore and Colin Atkinson (headmaster at Millfield), where Trump was to become the headmaster having worked a "assistant master in charge of the Remedial English Department at Millfield"; the article also states Trump as "captain of Devon County Cricket Club". A later article in the Central Somerset Gazette, 20 September 1974 discussed Trump opening a similar school in Edington (now Shapwick School) due to the impending closure of Chalice. I'll add these two to the article to support the statements there. Not found any explicit link to Appleford yet. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per playing in List A cricket, his significant m/c career and the extra info found by AA. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply passes WP:GNG on the basis of the sources that are already in the article, and would be likely see enhanced coverage if the article was researched more thoroughly, both due to his role as a long-term cricketer for Devon, and because of his later educational career. Once again, though, the welter of information which has come out following the AfD makes me concerned about nominator's statement that there is "nothing in searches". DevaCat1 (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not reasonable to expect anyone to find coverage behind a paywall. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I disagree on that. If you're going to comment "nothing in searches" then make them comprehensive- online, offline- or note that the BNA has not been checked in the AfD nomination. The WP:BEFORE standard is seriously flawed and allows for too many AfDs to be presented. I note that the coverage from Devon CCC, which I have added and which is not behind a paywall, was not picked up either. I would expect anyone submitting an AfD to have done comprehensive checks, and refer to them in the AfD proposal. Second, note the nominator's comment to me on an exchange on his talk page that "I've subscription access to almost all Australian and British newspapers (plus cricket books)" (comment 21 March at 15:23) so I would presume that he has access to the BNA. If someone has access to the BNA, then they should be checking it. So your comment is, in my view, both wrong in theory and evidentially wrong about this particular nominator. In any case, thanks for enhancing the article before the drive-by of me. DevaCat1 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't have access to BNA so in my before I haven't searched BNA. Störm (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded the article with everything I could easily find on BNA. By my reckoning there is enough significant coverage to pass GNG, even if it is all local. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for finding the additional info Wjemather :) StickyWicket (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh One could make a very reasonable delete argument based on the hyper-local coverage; had he not played his single WP:NCRIC-qualifying match, for which no coverage has been found, we wouldn't keep this article, and I fully expect that List A matches will fall off WP:NCRIC if we ever actually match it to GNG. That being said I'm too exhausted from all of this cricket cleanup to make that argument, so I'm just noting this for the future. (The fact he would be additionally notable for being a headmaster is ludicrous.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So is calling for people to be banned or using G5 on an AfD. StickyWicket (talk) 08:16, 1 April 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 List of Devon County Cricket Club List A players. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gribble[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Devon County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List A match, but couldn't find any significant coverage. Looks as if he may have become a butcher but that's all I could find, sources may exist offline or locally though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, they are redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a complete failure of GNG. It is time for Wikipedia to stop being cricketpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 6 April 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 List of Northumberland County Cricket Club List A players. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Stonock[edit]

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

Nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also easy, I have found, to be led astray by Tim Stonock the estate agent who is in business with a Christopher Stonock, or Tim Stonock the alumnus of Durham School who (according to the school boasting of its alumni) played cricket for a different team. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Northumberland County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:15, 30 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 List of Northumberland County Cricket Club List A players. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Ritzema[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Northumberland County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Looks to have had a reasonable club career and done some club coaching, but not enough to pass as notable. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, no WP:GNG qualifying coverage found. SportingFlyer T·C 23:36, 6 April 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 List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Coles[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Sources may exist offline or locally though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total and complete failure of GNG which is the minimum for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 6 April 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 ; consensus is to delete, with no prejudice to an improved form of the article existing in the future if this neologism gains traction. Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super straight[edit]

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

Several drafts of this article were recently rejected at AfC as non-notable. Sources provided span only a few days, so provide no indication of enduring notability.--Trystan (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism and internet phenomenon. Coverage has already subsided, so I think it's already pretty clear this doesn't have enduring notability. We don't need an article on every TikTok trend and /pol/ trolling campaign. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is numerous coverage even up to a few days ago. [12] . Additionally there are numerous places that link to this article. [13] BlackAmerican (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackAmerican: There is "numerous coverage" or there is one Vice (RSP entry) article? Because it looks like the latter to me. Just because we are seeing the long tail of a flash in the pan does not mean it is not a flash in the pan. As for "there are numerous places that link to this article": even if the number of links to an article was an indicator of notability, you are wrong about the incoming links. In fact, the article is an orphan: [14]. When you don't filter the WLH search to articlespace you end up with a lot of auto-results generated by the article being listed at AfD, by the WikiProject templates, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree the article isn't an orphan and links between it and other articles can easily be created. It comes down to your perspective. Also with the article being changed in large degree it doesn't help the situation. Additionally the changes have almost made the article seem like a hate article when the original popular term is no where near the case. It was individuals who wanted to express their sexuality without being judged. The collateral damage was individuals who associated it with things that it simply wasn't. In fact the founder stated ""I created it because I was sick of being labeled with very negative terms for having a preference, something I can't control, and getting labeled by the community that preaches acceptance with that sort of stuff," Kyleroyce" ^[1] BlackAmerican (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's not really a matter of opinion. An article is either an orphan or it isn't, based on whether or not it has incoming links from other articles in the mainspace. At the moment, super straight is an orphaned article. But like I said, an article's orphan status is really not relevant to deletion discussions (see WP:ORPHS); I was simply pointing out that your WLH link didn't prove the point I think you intended for it to.

The article has been changed to actually reflect the sourcing, which it did not originally do—note that an ((essay-like)) tag was added shortly after the article was created for this reason. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be reflections of your personal views on a topic, and you need to stop adding statements that do not reflect the sources you are inserting to try to mold the article to your own views (which seem to differ substantially from RS coverage). GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm asking myself what are the exact criterias to be a notable neologism. And how do you define, that this term has enduring notability. Just saying... I'm for keeping, as super straight is part of the Zeitgeist. I would rather delete obviously biased references to Nazis and far right. Why do we need to categorize everything in "good" and "bad"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:5092:6200:a49e:75bd:c3a7:17c5 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — 2001:16b8:5092:6200:a49e:75bd:c3a7:17c5 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NEO. As for "obviously biased references", see WP:NPOV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I'm inclined to think the topic reaches the level of notability (e.g., the PinkNews story and the Snopes fact check alone put this close to the GNG bar), but this article would benefit from WP:DUE vetting in the AfC process and there is no urgency for us to have an article in mainspace. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI there is also a draft at Draft:Super straight (term)‎ GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Four drafts about this topic. Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 16 different sources, this seems to be a notable neologism. Making predictions on its endurance seems too much as a crystal ball to me. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GorillaWarfare. The coverage has pretty much subsided and the term is already fairly well covered at /pol/#Notable_events. Right now the coverage for this term is all but a trickle and there's no evidence that this will gain enough coverage to show that it's really notable. When this was in the news the coverage was already on the lighter side and most tended to report the exact same thing as the next. I don't see where there's enduring notability enough to justify an independent article at this point in time. If more coverage comes about then this could have its own article, but it looks like a good chunk of the media chose to either not report on this or just summarize what another source wrote. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least merge into the draft and see if there is more coverage later. It currently seems live a short-lived Internet neologism, and is already declining in popularity. Twassman | Talk | Contribs 17:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Transphobia. This seems a bit too recent to be its own article. X-Editor (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Absolutely plagued with issues including the fact that text I wrote in a draft was copied here without attribution in the page history. However I do feel this deserves its own article. Plenty of coverage to work with. versacespace talk to me 23:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (more specifically, merge with existing draft) — some good discussion took place at Draft talk:Super straight (term) determining that it wasn't quite notable enough at this time and that we should wait to see if it is covered by more major news sources first. I still feel we should wait to see if it gets any more coverage, since it seems to have gone unmentioned by any media for the past week or more. If not worthy of a draft, I'll take Delete instead. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 23:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fact that Super Straight brings out strong emotional responses shows how strong of a topic it is. It isn't meant to be hurtful. It is simply a chosen group wishing to promote self love of their sexuality. It is growing despite measures to have it banned. The article was written in a deliberate attempt as to not offense anyone. It is an expressed sexuality along with numerous media references. To some it is a response to the what may be considered to overbearing nature of some groups. Just like CIS became a term, as did LatinX, I do believe that enough people subscribe to their chosen gender as being superstraight. BlackAmerican (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: BlackAmerican (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
comment It is a strong enough topic that even other articles or drafts were created to show its importance [15] . BlackAmerican (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one here has argued it should be deleted because it is hurtful. We have lots of articles about hurtful topics. It should be deleted because it's not notable. As for your characterization of the term, that is not how RS describe it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many RS in the article. The problem is also many have been deleted and the original NPOV article has been dramatically changed to suit an agenda. There was a controversy portion of the article that has been minimized and moved to the lead. [16]. The article is notable, there is even an article from 2015 concerning super straight. [17] . BlackAmerican (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which RS have been deleted from the article? The article has been dramatically changed, but it was to bring it in line with NPOV, not to suit an agenda. As for the controversy section, that was per WP:CRITS. Regarding your journal article, how is there a journal article on a term that was coined six years later? Just because the journal quotes someone who described themselves as "super straight" does not mean they are describing the same thing, which given the timing, they clearly aren't. That is, unless you think we need to add to the article that "super straight" actually describes men who have sex with men, because that is what the author is writing about. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The evolution of the term isn't something that I have an issue with. The same way you may see the term Negro a normal term to now as being a bad term. You will also see the evolution of the n-word, which when used by whites can be derogatory but when used by other blacks it may not seem to be that bad. So yes, if you see the article of Superstraight was popularized more recently but it had many times in which it was previously used. BlackAmerican (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who looks at the journal you linked will see that it is not an evolution of the term, but rather an entirely unrelated usage. That said, this is becoming somewhat tangential to the deletion discussion, so if you'd like to continue discussing the journal article I'll be happy to do so at Talk:Super straight. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackAmerican: CIS is not an acronym. Cis is short for cisgender, to complement transgender, as in the cis-trans distinction in chemistry; you can read about the history and etymology further in the cisgender article. If you want other editors to believe you are acting in good faith, please use these terms appropriately. Funcrunch (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Funcrunch: I was not aware of the differences. I am acting in good faith. I am not anti LGBT. I am a member of a repressed group. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackAmerican: You can be a member of an oppressed group and still act in ways that are harmful to other oppressed people. But this is getting off-topic. Funcrunch (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Funcrunch: Yes someone can be. I am not. My lack of understanding was not malicious. I am not perfect. As previously stated, I am not anti LGBT. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackAmerican: - as someone who's trans, while I think you probably created this page in good faith, I don't believe the movement itself to be in good faith at all. I live in the UK, where every celebrity's pasttime is coming out as transphobic, and where good transgender healthcare flows like treacle - way too effin' slowly - and I've seen many a TERF jump on the super straight hashtag excluding people like myself from their definitions of 'male' or 'female'. Regular straight people would just say they're not looking for trans partners; 'super straight' people like to make a point of that exclusion as a political fact, not an identity one. It's not so much defined by people's 'love' of their sexuality, so much as needing to use it as a battering ram against others, which you may not have seen yourself. Unfortunately, I can't say I've personally seen anyone identify as 'super straight' in good faith at all. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch: I discovered where I saw CIS as a short usage. It was in the article by Mashable. "Over the last two weeks, (mostly cis) people on social media have started openly identifying as "super straight." [18] BlackAmerican (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Funcrunch is just pointing out that styling it in all-caps make it look like an acronym, whereas it's usually just written in normal casing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. FWIW, that Mashable article links its first usage of cis to a definition that explains it is short for cisgender. Funcrunch (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ReaderofthePack covered it well. As for the claim it meets GNG, WP:NOT also has to be overcome; it's not just a matter of satisfying 'more than two non-garbage media outlets put out something on it'. This is the exact sort of flash in the pan thing that we exclude per WP:NOTNEWS. All evidence so far is that the only sources that will ever exist on it are from a period of a few days in March 2021; the WP:10YT excludes it. Plus, so far it's only gotten coverage in rather small or niche outlets. The topic is also already covered at our article on /pol/ and could again be hatnoted from the unrelated song Super Straight, so nothing else is needed. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing isn't great even when considering the flash in the pan time period. Just a couple internet-focused periodicals, all discussing how the term is just a new attempt at transphobia. Seems like a pretty clear WP:NEOLOGISM problem (and WP:RECENTISM) that has little to no likelihood to stick around. Maybe it deserves inclusion on some sort of list article on terminology somewhere, but that appears to be the best it's going to get. No real notability argument seems to exist to have an article on it. Silver seren^C 04:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think our jobs isn't to judge people how they determine themselves. And while keeping it we need to make sure this article includes more clear information, starting with imagery. It shouldn't identify as "Schutzstaffel" after some 4chan memes since 4channers doing politically incorrect memes all the time. Also don't forget, Transgender term popularized after an activist named "Leslie Feinberg". I think it is a topic need further research, censoring it wouldn't help further data.Thorrul.btc (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Thorrul.btc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep As per Dimadick, it's too early to say whether this neologism is a "flash in the pan" or not. As mentioned above, Snopes and Pink News have discussed this term in detail, and it's been covered by Refinery29 and Vice (which I'd say are citeable on occasion as they generally cover pop culture and web trends reliably) and as long it's cleaned up and an eye is kept on it to make sure NPOV is kept, I don't see why this article should be deleted. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 18:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why people cite WP:TOOSOON in cases like this. We are WP:NOTCRYSTAL; something which fails WP:NOTNEWS is not kept around because just maybe it will be more than a flash in the pan in the future. The vast majority of these things sink without a trace and this will almost certainly be one of them. Wikipedia is not to play a role in helping them stay afloat. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not our role to immediately create an article about every neologism that happens to pop up on Twitter. When it is still in question as to whether this is a "flash in the pan" or will take off as a topic with long-term significance, we do not keep the article on a "wait and see" basis — we do the waiting and seeing first, and if and when it does reach long-term significance, then and only then that's when we start the article. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely per Crossroads. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of information. The ten year test thought experiment makes it pretty clear that the issues with this article and its sourcing will only get worse over time - users above have described it as "a flash in the pan with a long tail," which seems accurate. That tail appears to be receding already based on coverage of the term, and while the term could surge back into mainstream use or discussion tomorrow or in two weeks or in three years, we can't predict the future and we definitely can't base deletion decisions on it. This article is too soon at best. ezlev.^talk 18:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too soon to tell if there will be sufficient sustained notability. Rab V (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But change to not be biased, OR redirect to the actual page for people that are attracted to only non-trans people of the opposite sex. Even if this started as a joke term, there would still have to be an actual sexual orientation where you are attracted to people of the opposite sex, that are not trans. If every LGBTQ+ Term is accepted as a real orientation then this should be as well. In fact this probably the most common orientation. Not just throughout history but even currently. To try and act like it's just anti trans identity is stupid and threatening the account of anyone who even discusses it, proves that you're biased and not actually concerned about the reality of it. 2603:90C8:503:BE18:282B:A964:D9BC:6F30 (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please try and keep AfD discussions encyclopedic; implying that "every LGBT Term" isn't a "real" orientation is a matter of opinion, not a citeable fact, nor does Wikipedia have to grant the same prominence to one article because there's a similar, ideologically opposing article as well. "In fact this [is] probably the most common orientation" is an opinion, not a fact, and "To try and act like it's just anti trans identity is stupid and threatening the account of anyone who even discusses it, proves that you're biased" is some conspiracy theory peddlin' nonsense, wherein evidence against the conspiracy, in an Olympic feat of mental acrobatics, becomes evidence in favour of the conspiracy.

Anyway; I'd say Merge this article if, in a few months time, nothing further comes out about 'super straight' as an identity, at which a point we can absorb it into Transphobia, maybe. It can always be re-created as an article if it pops back up at a later time. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IP 2603's first post on Wikipedia was 28 March 2021, with edit summary, wikipedia is liberal propaganda. Their reversion rate stands currently at 93%. Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) Checking reliable sources in Google books, I find this term is used (rarely), but never with the meaning given here. Most commonly, this term is a descriptor for a hairstyle: (1 2 3 4 5) or sometimes an adjective describing someone who is highly conventional, reserved, or socially conservative (e.g., "the superstraight girls almost never show up to our parties"; "collegeage and superstraight in a Jaycee way": 6 7 8 9) or a fictional brand of corset created by Edith Wharton: (10 11), or a description for attractive teeth: (12 13); but what it *never* is used for in books, is a type of gender identity. In scholarly journals, there is one use of superstraight that might be taken as a gender identity, but it defines a subset of homosexuality or MSM: (14). The rest of the journal articles are about metallic alloys, math, or chiropractic. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we might consider creating it as a type of hairstyle, but since these are all trivial mentions, it doesn't pass the bar of WP:SIGCOV so cannot be created as a standalone article, so we should either delete it, or redirect it to Hairstyle. Mathglot (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's going to be redirected it probably ought to go to Super Straight, which is a song. I'm pretty sure we avoid having two articles with titles that differ only in capitalization, but since this is at AfD I was leaving that particular issue for after the deletion discussion is closed, since it might be rendered moot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding WP:Notability, I think not enough attention has been paid to Trystan's comment right at the very top of this nomination, namely:
Sources provided span only a few days, so provide no indication of enduring notability.

Exactly. According to WP:SUSTAINED: "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. ... Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.

A "brief burst of news coverage" is exactly what we have here. Not only have news coverage and comments by the chatterati subsided, but so has interest among internet users searching for information about it. Search interest began on 4 March, peaked on 9 March, and has dropped precipitously since then to almost zero. This term fails notability, because there has not been "attention over a sufficiently significant period of time". Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, I would certainly agree with the image of the trend. The issue I have seen is that many of the hashtags have been deleted or blocked. BlackAmerican (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not our problem, though. Even if it is the blocking of hashtags that has led to the lapse in coverage (which I doubt is actually the case), the fact remains that there has not been enduring coverage, and that is what would be needed for the article to be kept. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The graph plots search queries, not coverage. Blocking a hashtag does not block what people type into search engines. Mathglot (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's my input on hashtags. They are designed for use on social media first and foremost. You can use them in an internet search but searches operate differently from social media. Twitter or TikTok blocking or removing a search term or hashtag will not impact Google search results as that's something Google has to do - and they typically don't. I search using the hashtag myself and brought up results, so Google isn't blocking or removing the term.

This also won't impact news coverage. It may change how a news outlet would post on a social media site, but I have a strong suspicion that the removal of the hashtag has less to do with a blanket removal of the term and more the who and how someone is using the hashtag. By this I mean that the user is using the hashtag in a way that violates the social media site's TOS. However it would not stop a news outlet from reporting on something if the outlet were to see the topic as being worthwhile to report on - meaning that they think it would result in clicks and reads. The removal, block, or ban of something is typically interesting to news outlets, so the fact that they haven't seen this as newsworthy beyond the initial flurry (and some not at all) is kind of telling.

The long and short of this though is that social media posts aren't usable to establish notability. Even if the hashtag wasn't getting removed or blocked at all, the presence of more posts wouldn't make something more notable on Wikipedia. The same goes for frequency of the term's use. It may make it more likely it would get covered, but it's not a guarantee of coverage. Only coverage in RS would do that. The main question here is whether this deserves its own article.

Moving on to that specific question, the issue at hand is whether this needs its own article or if it's already covered well enough in another article. If we look at the coverage there are three things that stand out:

The coverage is from a fairly short period of time.
Most of the coverage says the same thing, making it very likely that they just copied the basics from another outlet (a common tactic).
Most of the coverage is about the trolling campaigns on places (predominantly /pol/) that are trying to use the term for their own devices.

This is why I have argued that the coverage at the /pol/ article is where the term should be covered since that what the coverage focuses on. Yes, the coverage does mention its use as a sexual orientation term but that is more of an afterthought, a preamble to the trolling campaign. I'd go as far as to argue that if the trolling campaign was never actually launched, this term would have died in obscurity and have never gained any traction in the media at all. You're not really going to find many news articles that have substantial coverage and do not focus predominantly on the trolling campaign, in specific not enough to establish where this is independently notable at this point in time. I want to stress that this is "at this point". If more coverage comes about in the future then and only then should this be its own article. I'm just skeptical as to whether this will happen at any point in the near future given the dearth of coverage that currently exists since the initial media flurry. The majority of outlets have moved on to other topics. If independent notability is to be established then this will likely come about in the further future when academic/scholarly sources report on this. Even then there will still be a need to establish how this is independently notable of the trolling campaign or how the campaign has taken on independent notability. This isn't there yet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a notable term that has become increasingly more commonly used by people to denote (whether as self-identification or scaldingly) those who do not want to partake in sexual activities with non-cis people. There's a multitude of sources and broad media coverage of the phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordParsifal (talk • contribs) 01:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LordParsifal: Just for clarity's sake, are you describing the existing sources in the page as a "multitude" and "broad media coverage", or are you saying there are a multitude of sources and broad media coverage that aren't yet being used in the article? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is your comment about "increasingly more commonly used" based on your own experience, or why do you say that? Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://news.yahoo.com/social-media-trend-people-identifying-190232045.html

Delete WP:TOOSOON and this is not a WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Let's see if it's WP:SUSTAINED in a few months... -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Striking through my previous vote and voting "delete" because the other "keep" voters are embarrassing me. WP:NEO I guess... versacespace talk to me 04:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has a massive media coverage.Nott Mesjing (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/draftify. Seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS but in few years I wouldn't be surprised to see academic studies mentioning this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with merge to TikTok as second choice. Sources contributing to notability that I see are, in decreasing significance: Vice, Snopes, Daily Dot, Indy100, Mashable and Dazed. Coverage started on March 9 and Indy100 was published four days ago so that's at least a fortnight. Several different publications. I don't think PinkNews is good for establishing notability but it's passable to flesh the article out with. Were this just about (e.g.) TikTok then a merge might be preferable, but it's about a trend that spans several different platforms, so I don't think a merge would be right. VersaceSpace is right that most "keep" !voters are "embarrassing" in the sense that the closing admin must discount them or give them little weight, but this is nonetheless my independent evaluation of the article's notability. — Bilorv (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not exactly a high quality article when "to troll leftists" is present outside of quotes. I don't consider there to be enough media attention to consider it notable, there's a clear bias in the article, it references tabloid-like sources, and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. The piece is more appropriate for internet culture sites. Uses x (talk • contribs) 13:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quick burn, low-usage Internet neologism. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GorillaWarfare, Ser!, and Uses x took the words right out of my mouth. Plus it's not too well written to begin with. This isn't Know Your Meme, we aren't documenting everything that makes the rounds on TikTok or Twitter. AdoTang (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Aites[edit]

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

Filmmaker / musician of unclear notability. It seems that he directed a notable film and was the frontman of a band. Could not find much RS about him. Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quick search brought up numerous sources, about his music career, film work, and cancer - the page needs work, but Aaron passes WP:NOTE and WP:SIGCOV. Redoryxx (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redoryxx: - See WP:SOURCESEXIST. If those sources are out there, list them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This is a close call; his films gained some notability but in my opinion there was very little coverage that was specific about him as a director. He got some coverage before and after his untimely death; including crowdfunding pleas when he was ill ([19]), then some announcements of his death ([20], [21]). Sadly, I will have to cite WP:NOTMEMORIAL as a reason to delete the article, but others may feel differently. Also, his band was completely non-notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as above. Kolma8 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 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. I don't see the keep arguments as convincing in the face of the source analysis, which is rather damning. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petzone[edit]

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

non-notable company, sourced to press releases and WP:MILL "coverage" if you can even call it that, as well as black hat SEO. VAXIDICAE💉 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, non-notable company, all sources are press releases, fails WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable in the Kuwaiti context. About a dozen locations isn't bad for a small country like Kuwait, and is also in major mainstream news like the Kuwait Times. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Kuwaiti context, there is Wikipedia. And it's not notable in Wikipedia context because it's all press releases. Kuwait Times is a listicle with nothing of value about the subject. VAXIDICAE💉 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Barely passes WP:GNG, not strong refs but seems enough to pass GNG like Gulf News, Kuwait News Agency, Kuwait Times, Bayut, Khaleej Times and more. Grailcombs (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are press releases, which means it's not coverage nor is it independent. VAXIDICAE💉 18:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter - GNG is the wrong guideline. For companies, the correct guideline is WP:NCORP which is recognised as being stricter than GNG, so if Grailcombs believes is "barely" passed GNG, it has no chance of passing NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage and meets the notability criteria for a company article. RedElephanty (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RedElephanty, "enough coverage" isn't one of the criteria - can you post a link to any single reference that you believe meets the "notability criteria"? Ta. Also, a *Question - I notice that you have very few edits and yet you created the article in one edit. For a newbie editor, that is very unusual - to have managed to create an article with links and references with no futher editing. Very unusual (did I say that already?). Have you ever edited Wikipedia previously? Do you have a connection with the company? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note for the closer that none of the keeps here have provided any policy based arguments and their statement that there is sufficient sourcing can easily be demonstrated to be incorrect, see below. VAXIDICAE💉 13:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2766190&language=en#	~	not even about Pet Zone, just a single mention in passing		✘ No
https://gulfnews.com/lifestyle/community/animal-shelters-clinics-and-take-in-organisations-in-the-uae-1.619824	this is submitted PR	~ primary info only	a single blurb in a listicle	✘ No
https://isoulandbody.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/petzone-kuwait/	blog	random blog, not an independent rs and no indication it has any editorial oversight		✘ No
https://248am.com/mark/animals/petzone-now-largest-pet-store-kuwait/	another random blog, no editorial oversight			✘ No
https://www.arabtimesonline.com/news/pets-keeping-businesses-are-flourishing-in-kuwait/	clearly a press release considering it's an exact copy of #1			✘ No
https://kuwait24hours.com/kuwait-news-2/petzone-kuwait-promotes-responsible-loving-pet-ownership-in-kuwait/	clearly another Pr as it's copied from several other sources			✘ No
http://markets.buffalonews.com/buffnews/news/read/40751726/the_history_behind_the_success_of_petzone	press release			✘ No
https://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/petzone-kuwait-promotes-responsible-loving-pet-ownership-in-kuwait/	This is a mish-mash of a press release combined with an interview, it is not independent	~ for primary info		✘ No
https://kuwaitlocal.com/news/getting-a-new-pet-during-covid19	this is basically a curated local "forum" type blog	literally just a business directory		✘ No
https://www.timeoutdubai.com/time-in-2020/437511-where-to-shop-for-pet-food-and-supplies-online-in-the-uae	just a directory listing			✘ No
https://www.bayut.com/mybayut/pet-adoption-centres-dubai/	another glorified business listing			✘ No
https://themagazineplus.com/2020/12/12/the-history-behind-the-success-of-petzone/	another press release			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

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 List of Worcestershire County Cricket Club players. As an ATD in the absence of substantive sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W. Baker (Worcestershire cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes has only played 2 FC matches (enough to pass WP:NCRIC in it's current form), and a search was difficult with the limited details we know, but the matches he played were both in the County Championship, which will have been very well covered at the time. Sources are likely to exist offline because of this. List of Worcestershire County Cricket Club players is a suitable WP:ATD if needed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are these sources that you assert are likely to exist offline? There's nothing in newspapers, so were there other publications that covered County Championship matches in such detail that even insignificant players were covered in sufficient detail to form the basis of an article? ----Pontificalibus 11:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rugbyfan22. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Very surprised a player from 1920 doesn't have any known biographical details. Even if he is redirected, a positive ID would be nice. StickyWicket (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have a scorecard and a statistics listing. Definitively fails WP:GNG, which supersedes NCRIC - there's not an ounce of SIGCOV. If sources are found, please let me know. SportingFlyer T·C 21:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Neither the Guardian match reports (e.g. https://www.newspapers.com/image/258093251/) nor syndicated local newspaper reports mention his first name or contain any details about him, so it seems his contribution to the two matches was considered entirely unremarkable.----Pontificalibus 10:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You can't build a biography around hypothetical sources that maybe someone will discover in the future, especially when the sources that do exist don't indicate any impact whatsoever. GNG is not met here, full stop. JoelleJay (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Worcestershire County Cricket Club players, where a note can be added if necessary to expand on his playing record and the fact that we appear to not have a forename etc... This is a well established ATD in such cases - I'd have boldly done it rather than bother with an AfD. If further information is found about him (it happens) we can then roll back the redirection and move forward. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:35, 5 April 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.