< May 21	May 23 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Skinner[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG notability thus far Triggerbit (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination fails GNG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijeet (actor)[edit]

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

Non notable filmmaker and actor who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from either criteria. He lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus this is a major GNG fail. A before search predominantly shows hits in self published, user generated sources and sources which do not possess editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any decent sources about him. I assume that this must be undisclosed WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO as well judging by the amount of WP:OR and the number of pictures in the article that only close family or the subject himself would have access to. Not a prominent actor or filmmaker. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom not enough coverage to pass GNG. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Tanwar[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:SPORTSPERSON Kolma8 (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:NBOXING#4. Chirota (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Echoing Kolma8. Furthermore, and generally speaking, there doesn’t seem to be enough coverage in reliable sources discussing the article's subject. Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above can't see enough coverage to satisfy GNG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathrin Böhm[edit]

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

Not notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs a major trim, to make comprehensible what she does. There is coverage in Google Books (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), Freize magazine (6, 7) and Art Monthly has an interview. The myvillages group she codirects also put out a book on MIT Press, which is highly reputable. To sum up, coverage is out there, but the article isn't reflecting that nor is it giving a good overview of her work. --- Possibly (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Possibly, there are tons of references in RS viz [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Obviously notable, but the key project section should be reduced significantly. Chirota (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This artist passes WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST and WP:BASIC. The article is just a mess, but that's all. Missvain (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST and WP:BASIC as per all above. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Lynne, Kentucky[edit]

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

I think that this one is probably a non-notable rail feature. This doesn't appear in Rennick's directory of Fulton Co. KY place names, and Rennick's comprehensive index includes Anna Lynne, but just says that it is a locale (geography)] without giving any details. Different topos show this place in different spot, but it is consistently a couple of buildings along the railroad. Searching in a couple county histories brings up nothing. Old rail directories indicate that this was on the railroad and had no post office, but provide no details. I cannot find significant coverage of this locale. Hog Farm _Talk 22:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 22:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 22:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Wildhorse3 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can find a 1997 Steam Powered Video's Comprehensive Railroad Atlas of North America which has this as a station on two maps, and a book of factoids that says nothing more than that it is an "interesting name" in Fulton County, but not what it is the name of. This one-sentence "unincorporated community" article is a falsehood, and I cannot find any sourcing to make even a decent stub. Uncle G (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG.

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. Missvain (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edilon Sedra[edit]

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

A non notable engineering company. Before showing no coverage I can find. Refs in the article are primary. Desertarun (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fails WP:GNG. Chirota (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! . This is a notable company. That it does not appear so much in tabloid papers for sensationalism is rather a proof of the serious nature of the company, which does not produce scandals for the gutter press. User:Stylez995 should rather have searched for REFs for the long list of notable projects where Edilon Sedra has contributed to, instead of simply deleting it. Keep it! --L.Willms (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @L.Willms: I've noticed in the revision history that the major contributor to this article, User:Gertjanlaan, appeared to being an employee of the company (but failed to disclose their apparent paid edits, as required by WMFs terms of conditions). Based on their contribution history, they only contributed to Edilon Sedra article, and most of them were promotional, and required lots of cleanup. Even tough, the user is not active since 2015.

Aside from that, I've deleted most of the notable projects list because of lack of sources. I personally saw their products at tramway construction projects in Oslo, Norway but it was not mentioned by the company, nor by secondary sources. According to Edilon Sedra's website, they have more projects than listed on this article, including the Seattle light rail project in the U.S., but there's no secondary sources about that so far. I can help contributing further to this article, when I receive more information. --Stylez995 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that User:Gertjanlaan is or was an employee of the company, but then he/she was certainly not paid for it, and wrote it in his free time. If a company or person pays for Wikipedia articles, they pay a professional writer for it, not an employee who might versed in the technical details but not in advertisement speech. See e.g. the recent revelation during the leadership scandal of the DFB (Deutscher Fußballbund - German Football Association), where one was accused of using funds of the association to pay for embellishments of the Wikipedia-article on this individual. This is by far not the only case, it may even be the case for the majority of articles, as far as they refer to persons, natural and moral. This company Edilon Sedna sells only to large infrastructure companies and thus is hardly mentioned in the general press, but that does not take away from its notability. --L.Willms (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company is notable, but the situation on the article needs improvement, like adding more references and information. The promotional edits by an apparent employee of the company has been cleaned up mostly (see my comment above), but needs some rewrite to be neutral. --Stylez995 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tried to find secondary sources, but I cannot find secondary, independent sources that supports their notability. So it fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. --Stylez995 (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @L.Willms:. Please don't WP:CANVASS for votes as you appear to have done above. We don't include companies based upon their employee count - only the existence of reliable secondary sources, which are lacking. Desertarun (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, I couldn't find independent sources to show sufficient notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beartooth Radio[edit]

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

A non-notable tech startup. The refs in the article are press releases or similar and not the significant coverage required for inclusion. Before showing the same. Desertarun (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. There isn't any RS telling anything about it. Chirota (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no reliable sources. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biotecnol[edit]

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

A non notable research company. Appears to be a startup with no significant presence. UK company accounts describe them as a "micro" company, exempted from any tax. Desertarun (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did a google search and found only one good additional source. Does not meet WP:GNG.Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find enough sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Belle Stars. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Matthias[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:NBIO. – bradv🍁 21:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no in-depth significant coverage in RS discussing the article's subject. Celestina007 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all the sources are from crappy websites , NO significant coverage on Wikipedia relieble sources , therefore i see NO evidence of Notability , Samat lib (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — as per nom, no in-depth significant coverage in RS available for this subject. Namkongville (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I'm guessing few in this discussion live in the UK or are over the age of 40. Here in the UK Jennie Matthias is universally known. She was a BIG star in the 80s. Note this sentence "Jennie Belle Star was a fully-fledged pop star" in the following article which appeared in one of Britain's largest newspapers - The Independent is a major British paper.^[1]. She has appeared on Top of the Pops at least 4 times in the UK. This is at least the American Equivalent of American bandstand. It would be an injustice not to include her contribution to girl powered music. Moppatt O'Smitty (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)---This user has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet Missvain (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/news/locks-stock-and-apparel-the-belle-stars-former-singer-now-sells-pristine-sixties-fashion-to-collectors-says-tony-marcus-1367342.html

Redirect to The Belle Stars. I love her contributions to Meg Lee Chin, Pigface and The Jam, but, I struggled to find enough content to satisfy that she is independently notable outside of the Belle Stars. Even searching all her pseudonyms (she has three), I found very little coverage that convinced me she passes WP:NMUSIC or WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Celestina007, Namkongville and Samat lib. What do you think of a redirect to her old band? Missvain (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain, Not a bad idea. I’m willing to take another look. Celestina007 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RE: "I'm sure there are sources offline" It's seems alarming that this mountain of offline coverage seems to be deemed irrelevant. It's as if nothing is important prior to the internet. I question whether "notability" should be based solely on modern day digital presence or whether there should be some respect given toward those who paved the way for the rest of us. Jennie Matthias was not only the lead vocalist in the Belle Stars, but a black woman who overcame racism and extreme adversity. She grew up in group homes, experienced drug abuse and emerged as an important community figure who went on to feed thousands of homesless people - by whom she is loved and admired. Surely she is worthy of respect? Moppatt O'Smitty (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)---This user has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet Missvain (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm but you can only !vote one. If you can present offline sources in the article that cover her extensively - not the Belle Stars - then we would appreciate it. Missvain (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Belle Stars. A lot of bad sources like YouTube, Discogs, Amazon and 45cat plus a blog site which should not be used. All sources must be reliable in article - if she does fail notability then a redirect to her former notable group (being the lead singer) is fine. Hiddenstranger (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Jennie Belle Star in the wikiverse. Wikipedia catogories are being misapplied to pop and music culture, where their profile very much exists in popular TV, Radio and Tabloid formats plus various concert venues. The idea of deleting a high profile entertainer because they used those platforms is absurd and wrong, merely because they existed before the intranet.Conor MacCloed (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)---This user has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet Missvain (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*KEEP Here in the UK Jennie Bellstar is a household name for anyone that grew up in the punk / ska eraSixtieschic (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)---This user has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet Missvain (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW. Missvain (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of weapons in the American Civil War[edit]

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

This article is very similar to a previous page that was deleted which tried to make an extensive list of weaponry that clearly wasn't needed. Despite having a huge amount of information listed almost all of it is not properly cited and the sources that are provided has little to no relevance to the topic at hand. I recommend deleting the article under WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS and what do you think @FDW777:? Labprison (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC) — Labprison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The nomination is an epic fail per WP:LISTN and WP:NEXIST plus WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Here's a selection of books dedicated to the topic:

The Civil War: Weapons
Weapons of the American Civil War
Field Artillery Weapons of the Civil War
Guns of the Civil War
Villainous Compounds – Chemical Weapons and the American Civil War
Sharpshooting Rifles of the American Civil War
Weapons of the Civil War Cavalryman
Civil War Weapons
Standard Catalog of Civil War Firearms
America's Buried History: Landmines in the Civil War

Andrew🐉(talk) 22:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. IF SO MANY SOURCE EXIST THEN START FILLING IT IN DUMBASS. DON'T TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU KNOW NOTHING!! ABOUT! @Andrew Davidson: 2600:1000:B012:918E:56BB:5F7E:261E:ADE1 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC) blocked editor, one edit ever.[reply]

Keep per Spiderone. Civil War buffs go nuts for this stuff, and write endlessly about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep - I've cleaned it up a bit to remove stuff that's not weapons, such as dogs, razors, and camels, but there's plenty of sources about this. In addition to Andrew Davidson's sources, I'll add Arms and Equipment of the Confederacy and Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil War. This is a very notable topic. Hog Farm _Talk 01:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable topic, deletion is not cleanup. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I thought there were rules in place to keep new editors from starting deletion discussions. This is ridiculous. The encyclopedia should list every weapon used in every war. That's just common sense. Dream Focus 02:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Spiderone. Powerful Karma (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up with additional sourcing. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and rather snowy as per above. Btw the OP has been indefinitely blocked on own request. ...GELongstreet (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and rather snowy as per above and all. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honeymoon (2018 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No significant coverage, review or anything. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has been reviewed in national level sources such as The Times of India here and Cinestaan already in the article so WP:NFILM criteria 1 is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Atlantic306 above and passes WP:NFILM and has WP:SIGCOV. Also, been covered in WP:RS like Anandabazar Patrika here. Run n Fly (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable film. --Gazal world (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has number of references of review and coverage. Pinakpani (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rickshawala (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No significant coverage or anything. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. WP:TOOSOON. Kolma8 (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' for now. Might become notable in future when released and when there is reception. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Powerful Karma (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep @আফতাবুজ্জামান: first of all I want to say that you should check WP:BEFORE. As the article is already reviewed by a reviewer. And the subject already have enough sources from multiple news portal like Times Of India, Indulge Express, Kolkata Mail, News Track, Iwm Buzz, Eisomoy, The Tribune, Cinestaan, Bizasia etc. And the Film got selected and also won many awards, if you search on Google you can see. So the film meet WP:NFILM. As I am the creator of the article I will add those news links on the article so you guys can see those news articles. Finally all I want to say that the article should not be deleted. Bengal Boy (talk 15:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE per this Run n Fly (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and in my view they don't pass as "significant coverage", Kolkata Mail, News Track, Iwm Buzz, Cinestaan, Bizasia aren't WP:RS. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::@আফতাবুজ্জামান: the film got some award and also got DadaShaheb Phalke Award. And have much news coverage. So the article passes WP:NFILM. And if you talk about WP:RS then I would like to say, very few subject will be meet the criteria. So first of all see the news coverage if the coverage is looking like an advertisement or the coverage is looking like a promotional content then you can tag the subject for Afd. If the covers looks like an advertisement then you can say that the subject is not meeting the criteria. And one more thing, if you are tagging any article for afd atleast write on my talk page otherwise how I will be able to know whether the article is tagged for afd or not. You are here on wikipedia from 6 years. So atleast do something as an experience editor which will inspire us. Thanks Bengal Boy (talk 06:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE per this Run n Fly (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. Desertarun (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Ana winds in popular culture[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork. Santa Ana winds#In popular culture, while far from perfect, already contains what appears to be the only relevant sourced information in this article. Everything else listed here is superfluous, unsourced, WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia that does not need to be covered on Wikipedia. There is nothing showing this topic needs its own article at this time on both the WP:GNG front and from a size management perspective, and there is nothing to merge back into the parent article that would enhance the current section. TTN (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh I created this to split off from the main article after a conversation back in 2013 on the talk page there. A full history export was done to https://cultural-phenomenons.fandom.com/wiki/Santa_Ana_winds_in_popular_culture if anyone cares about this information. Dream Focus 22:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pop culture trivia, delete per nom. Waxworker (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As almost the entirety of the article is unsourced trivia, and the actual sourced information from this list is already at Santa Ana winds#In popular culture, there is no need for this to be WP:SPLIT off. As the nom states, none of the unsourced information here should be merged back. If people wanted this to be used as a Redirect to that section of the main article, that would also be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above pop culture trivia. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are weaker because they do not address the sourcing problems. Nobody argues that the man has held a position for which notability is presumed by guideline. Sandstein 08:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Saunders[edit]

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

Gets some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Was moved to draft, where it was declined before being moved back to mainspace by the article's SPA creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable aid worker. One of the UN's most skilled operators, he's a "close confidant" of António Guterres himself. Ultra progressive for a married man of his age, though he stood by the good secretary general when SJWs were attacking him over George Floyd. Easily gets enough coverage in reliable independent sources to pass WP:GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing how WP:GNG is met here. (That Al Jazeera article mentions him twice in passing.) Please ping me if other sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 18:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deputy head and acting head of a significant agency of the UN. Clearly enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there specific sources that show GNG is met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom and SportingFlyer, i too do not see GNG being met or WP:SIGCOV fulfilled. Furthermore, when editors !vote a keep and make comments such as “they should be notable” “are notable” “obviously notable” or “there are enough sources establish notability” I believe they should be able to provide to the AFD the said sources that substantiates their claims and explain how the sources are eligible within the confines of GNG, Are the sources independent of the subject? Do the sources contain significant coverage? I say this generally and do not have any specific editor in mind whilst typing this. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep former CG of what is probably the most politically contentious UN programme at the point in time where the US was indicating that it would withdraw funding and was engulfed in a financial scandal. UCS, please. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oakfield, Iowa[edit]

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

Another early post office entered into GNIS from the Iowa Geological Survey and lacking any testimony on the topos, and located in a corn field. There is probably some confusion with the township of the same name, but even so I couldn't find anything other than post office listings and location name drops. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing in light of better info and article expansion. Mangoe (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is really hard to research. At least one source is useless because it doesn't clarify whether it is talking about the town or township. Ironically, in contrast to the easier-to-research ones it turns out to be an actual populated town. It's the reason that the Township exists, as it turns out from the history books and some footnotes to the Census of Iowa for 1880 at the Internet Archive that I found it originally it was a major town in Audubon county, back when had just the Exira, Oakfield, and Audubon townships.
The 1880 Lippincott's Gazetteer matched an Oakfield post-office in an Oakfield Township … in Wisconsin: i.e. Oakfield, Wisconsin and Oakfield (town), Wisconsin. But a few entries above on the same page, not matched, it does indeed have the one in Iowa, and calls it a "post-village", which means that it was more than just someone's farmhouse. (It uses "post-township" and "post-hamlet" similarly.)
The 1929 Annals of Iowa has this in its "Abandoned Towns of Iowa" listing on page 443. ("In southwest part of section 29, Exira Township. It was platted about 1855, soon had mills, stores and was a thriving town until 1868 […]")
Lippincott's goes on to say that it is on the Nishnabatona River (which I presume to be a mis-spelling of Nishnabotna River) and has "2 stores and a flour-mill". Andrews's 1915 History of Audubon County, Iowa at the Internet Archive has a fairly extensive history of the town on page 288, with further stuff on pages 32, 54 (where it explains how it was eclipsed by Brayton, Iowa in 1871), and elsewhere. Looking through the History there seems to be enough from that alone to do an article. So it's not an "unincorporated community", but a village, in fact a town per the Andrews History, that came and went in the 19th century and is in at least one history book in fair depth.
This one is actually fixable. Uncle G (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Uncle G's research is to be believed, than this was a populated town at one point. Meaning that for once, this passes WP:GEOLAND.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 21:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I AM THE LORAX, I SPEAK FOR THE TREES... uh.. wait, I mean, I speak for the former populated places of rural Iowa. I speak for the disappeared towns that have no tongues! Except in tons of reliable sources if you look. Come on, Mangoe, yesterday it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poplar, Iowa which is actually part of a rural historic district, today I find this one. I'm happy to rely on you for only-ever-was California railroad sidings in the desert, you do great work with those, but we shouldn't have to scurry around just because google maps shows this is a cornfield in 2021. I know some folks get disgruntled that these mass stubs were created years ago, but we can't fix that except over time, if it really is a bad thing. For Iowa, the University of Northern Iowa has a great resource of old newspapers here. cheers to all.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy enough to withdraw this one, given some actual narrative history of a town to go from. That said, there are still lots of places which don't have such info, and for which there isn't evidence that they genuinely were ever towns. I don't see a need for these articles to exist until they do have such documentation written into them, and the history thus far is that it's pretty rare for people to put the effort in until they are put up for deletion. If you want to take over for me in sorting through the Iowan cases, I'll gladly move on to another state. But someone needs to do the work. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the withdrawal and your efforts. I am happy to take over sorting through Iowa, but I must admit I WON'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING. Its fun to be a volunteer! So we will muddle on as we are, I suppose.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Milowent's excellent work expanding this article, with references, as convinced me this community was notable. notability is not temporary, so this article should stay. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Toronto Blue Jays first-round draft picks. Missvain (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. Davis (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player, fails WP:NBASE. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Toronto Blue Jays first-round draft picks where he is mentioned.. as a first round pick he is a likely search term. Not notable on his own but the redirect is appropriate. Spanneraol (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. A redirect wouldn't be the worst idea, though I doubt it's that likely of a search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Spanneraol. Rlendog (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TAK (audio codec)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable audio codec. I can't find any coverage of it apart from the supplied user-generated page already in the article. Page was previously deleted a few years ago and was recently re-created by a brand new user who has no other edits. ♟♙ (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article suggests it will pass WP:GNG my search did not find anything significant. There is a link to an official site in German, but no German language page. Jeepday (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been created now three times. Would like to hear thoughts about a possible salt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Astounding fail of GNG. I also think that this should probably be salted, 3x recreation is surely enough to merit a WP:SALT, no?--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 21:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG no indepth coverage available. Namkongville (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aldranser Bach[edit]

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

This is clearly not a river, maybe a stream. Regardless, it does not pass WP:GNG because sources do not exist. I also question the factual accuracy of the article since it claims that the "river" is inhabited by peacocks which are not native to Austria. Rusf10 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wholly unsourced for 10+ years (and I couldn't find anything useful in minutes). Note that it interwikilinks to de:Schintertalbach, and the talk page there indicates that the thing (whatever it is called) exists, but does not indicate any GNG notability. If we're not even sure about the name, nuking it is the only way to be sure. —Kusma (t·c) 16:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added sources that at least show that you can be shure about the name. --Cyfal (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources do not establish notability. You added three. The first two were just Google Maps. The third one has only one paragraph that mentions the brook (I think that's what this is). The translation reads Below the municipal garbage dump in Innsbruck, the Aldranser Bach flows into the Inn on the right bank. It takes up the Lanser Bach in its middle course. The latter was not re-examined in 1967 and 1968 because its quality status was determined separately in October 1962. In the meantime, the situation has certainly not improved due to the rapidly growing population density in the catchment area. The findings showed that both streams above the village settlements are practically pure, little influenced surface waters (quality classes I and I-II), but below these settlements have already exceeded the permissible pollution level (quality class III), and that even outside the summer tourist season. So, we know it exists and has poor water quality due the fact it is next to a municipal garbage dump (something you didn't even bother to mention in the article when you added the source), but verifiability does not equal notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My aim was answering Kusma's worries that a river with that name does not exist. And the peacocks seem to live in the park of Ambrass Castle, see here. --Cyfal (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Kusma or I dispute that it exists. What we dispute is: 1. It's a river. Clearly, it is either some type of stream, brook, or creek. 2. That it is notable enough to have an article.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously a (small) river, please read the beginning of the river article: "Small rivers can be referred to using names such as stream, creek, brook, rivulet, and rill." Kusma disputed the name of this small river, not the existence, therefore my adding of sources. --Cyfal (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this clearly passes WP:V the hurdle is WP:GNG nothing in either the English or German article suggest it will pass notability. My Google book search {"Aldranser Bach" -wikipedia} found a few minor mentions, that also support WP:V but fail to get it over WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inn (river)#Tributaries, the appropriate target as clearly indicated in Wikipedia:BEFORE: If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 07:25, May 17, 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merge as an WP:Alternative to deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge- This little stream so insignificant that its even in the same league as the other tributaries listed there. Since almost all information in the article is unsourced, there's really nothing to merge anyway.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, too small to be worth mentioning. —Kusma (t·c) 19:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep, sources are given in the the article, and the various points of WP:GNG are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyfal (talk • contribs) 21:43, May 22, 2021 (UTC)
- @Cyfal: you cannot vote twice, please strike one of your two votes.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck my comment above (see here). Hint: Inn (river)#Tributaries is a simple list without any additional informations. If this article is going to be deleted, I suggest that the google map references of Aldranser Bach are incorporated as references for the Aldranser Bach in Inn (river)#Tributaries. --Cyfal (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Another brook for which there is no real claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BALMA[edit]

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

Not satisfying any criteria of WP:SINGER. References are not reputed as found in WP:BEFORE. Chirota (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two pieces at playbpm.com.br. I do not know if it is a reliable source though. The rest is either fluff or primary. More telling is that there is no article on the Portuguese project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, thanks for your comment. Not sure if playbpm.com.br is notable, even if it is, the two pieces are written by same person VICTORY ZANE and appears promotion of new release. Anyways, no sign of passing WP:MUSICBIO. Chirota (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be the editor in this genre's music or the "Editora-chefe da Play BPM" (editor in chief). Granted, when the founders and owners rank higher on the digital masthead (https://playbpm.com.br/quem-somos/) and there are only three additional contributors, it does feel spammy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm afraid, at this point, there's really not a consensus here and another relist seems unlikely to get us there. The GNG arguments seem to pretty much collide with the BLP1E arguments, and without consensus among discussants about how to resolve that, not much more we can do here. Go Phightins! 20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Forstater[edit]

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

BLP of a tax expert whose only real claim to notability in my view is her role in a court case so WP:BLP1E applies. I tried redirecting to the court case (Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development) but was reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. BD2412 T 19:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per nom - clear WP:BLP1E and not notable independent of the legal case. See also: WP:CFORK. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development (merging in any relevant details). Furius (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the page because even if she was not notable before the trial, she is a well known name now, people will search for her name and it is useful for wikipedia to have information about her, separate from that about the case.Melissa Highton (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keepadded to article, her 2002 report and collaborations on international corporate social responsibility cited and used by United Nations, prior to the 2019 case.Kaybeesquared (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From WP:BLP1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The court case is at the heart of a highly significant controversy in the UK, drawing in many people. Nobody has a larger role in it than Forstater. Moreover, the court case is more than a single event: there was the original case, the controversy over JK Rowling's tweet, and the recent hearing.AndyGordon (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Missvain I agree with @LizardJr8 that this subject passes the WP:GNG . I'd go beyond what I wrote above in saying that the subject is not simply notable for the case Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development, but is a public figure notable for multiple reasons, including her recent leadership of a new campaign to get EHRC to end its membership of the Diversity Champions scheme, and to get a review of Stonewall's influence on public institutions. AndyGordon (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect If Forstater were a retail worker suing Tesco for wrongful dismissal, her role in said litigation would not establish notability. Her role in a Twitter controversy does not establish notability. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Centre for Global Development lists 4 other visiting fellows: 3 notable women (a former president of Malawi, the director of the WTO, the deputy director of the IMF) and one man (a law expert, CEO, former UN commissioner, former UK special envoy, and former director of DFID) who is apparently not notable. While this comparison may not be strong evidence of non-notability, I believe it does help to establish that this is not someone who had simply been overlooked until now because of her gender. Beware of recentism. Will need improvement if kept, but WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Oktalist (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and I think that this is more than WP:BLP1E. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has become very well known, and people will certainly search for her name. Athel cb (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd just like a little more here - "being famous" and "people will look her up" is not policy based.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, possibly merge to Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development. BLP1E. I'm not seeing any coverage not related to the case. Sandstein 08:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Always keen to learn, but here is my understanding:

Her media coverage almost always mentions the case, and indeed much is about the case, but some coverage is about her broader campaigning on sex-based rights. For instance, the Sunday Times article on May 9 concerned a letter she has coordinated calling into the role of Stonewall in public life. Is that article purely about the court case? No, it's part of her broader campaigning, which is inappropriate to cover in an article devoted to the court case.

In any case, to quote WP:BLP1E again, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Is this case highly significant? I think so based on a high degree of controversy. Forstater's role is large one, and her notability goes beyond it, hence I conclude we should keep the page. AndyGordon (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There appears to be a general consensus that the topic itself is worthy of mention somewhere in the encyclopedia. Beyond that, not much consensus—after three relists—about how to proceed. The editors who argue that it was notable at some point don't really seem to have established a GNG-based case for why, though a suitable merge target was not identified. All this is to say that an editor (or editors) are welcome to consider merge targets in the future and probably could boldly just do it and redirect the article from there. But there's not a consensus to delete, so I think this AFD has reached the end of the line. Go Phightins! 20:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg Aptitude Test[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The free of charge Bloomberg Aptitude Test (BAT) that was specifically targeted to students and job seekers was discontinued in 2013. There is no reference to it at all on the Bloomberg website any more, nor anywhere else prior to 2013. As the article says, BAT has been replaced by a Bloomberg Professional Market Concepts training course which costs hundreds of dollars and is not targeted to students nor given on college campuses. The Market Concepts training course is a non-notable financial education course for business professionals. FeralOink (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. FeralOink (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FeralOink (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. FeralOink (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because the test is defunct does not mean the article should be deleted. Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. The IHE source definitely constitutes significant coverage. I haven't been able to find a second significant source for GNG, but am not totally confident yet that one doesn't exist. Note to others looking for coverage: the test has been written under two names: Bloomberg Aptitude Test and Bloomberg Assessment Test. MarginalCost (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per MarginalCost the rational for delete is flawed. It appears to have been notable, and so it stays notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While notability is not temporary it is not clear that notability was ever reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I get 14 hits in GScholar, some are only campus papers but a few are peer-reviewed journals that mention the test. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the problem Oaktree: they are just mentions. I did check Google Scholar before my comment, and none of them constitute significant coverage for GNG purposes. MarginalCost (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else? Does this test pass general notability guidelines with signifcant coverage in reliable secondary sources?

So far I'm not convinced by the keeps.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can merge this somewhere. It is clearly noteworthy, if not independently notable. As this is the product of a larger "Bloomberg Institute", which redirects to this article, perhaps move the article to that title and add information on the Institute (which does appear to return some Google Books hits. BD2412 T 20:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: can you give some examples? I looked at several of the first results (both Google books and elsewhere), and just saw citations of the institute's work without coverage of the institute itself, false positives (including authors with the last name Bloomberg, as well as an unrelated child psycholofy office in Illinois), and brief mentions – but no significant coverage of the institute itself. MarginalCost (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If not refactored, I would still think that this could be merged somewhere. There is obviously some higher level of abstraction that is notable. BD2412 T 03:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The next level up would probably be creating a subsection section under Bloomberg L.P.#Products and services for Bloomberg Education (which seems to be what "Bloomberg Institute" is going by these days, as far as I can tell. MarginalCost (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be something missing between here and there. We have multiple articles on Bloomberg divisions and products. BD2412 T 00:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete – after almost a month of listing, it seems there is no more significant coverage to be found. While I stand by my comments above that the IHE source is significant coverage, without a second it fails GNG. If someone is able to write another article with significant coverage on a related topic, we can always redirect then, but for now, delete. MarginalCost (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is trivial. JBchrch talk 16:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it used to be important, but the article may need to be updated. Leaderboard (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTTEMPORARY - if it was notable one day in the distant past, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. The coverage is bare, but it's enough for me. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Istanbul Molotov Bus Attack[edit]

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

A whole article isn't needed for molotovs being thrown at a bus. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see any clear significance of this event. Unfortunately, every killing does not warrant its own article. While this is arguably terrorism, I think it just amounts to a crime which resulted in the death of one person. There are undertones that the PKK may have been involved, but this appears more like an unfounded accusation which did not lead to any real action. Unless someone can show there is greater significance here, I have to vote delete. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant event. It didn't get in-depth coverage and it's not notable per WP:LASTING. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Insignificant event. It didn't get in-depth coverage and it's not notable per.." - This is not accurate. If you simply Google "Serap Eser" or specifically image search "Serap Eser" you will find so much publicity, news articles on the story, websites using pictures of her face. In fact looking at the "News" sections of Google the last time this was mentioned was in 2020 November by Turkey's state run news agency. This story is very well known in Turkey.

I think it just amounts to a crime which resulted in the death of one person. Two other Istanbul attacks that resulted in the death of one person:

TataofTata (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This event is still spoken about till this day, it was a supposed terrorist attack in Istanbul in 2009, as written it shows how later the former Interior Minister of Turkey stated that the turkish secret agency MIT was responsible of this. This event is used to accuse the PKK of being a terrorist organisation still to this day, while there is rumours the family has been silenced and kids who were in the area accused and wrongfully jailed. If you are unawares of what is going on, don't remove it, research it or stay out of the topic completely. This was a false flag operation and needs the story told. Whether one person died or 1000, it still matters, considering it was not a normal death or an accident, or a normal crime. People looking to research this story may find this page useful.--TataofTata (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can I just clarify, on what policy grounds has this been nominated? "A whole article isn't needed..." etc. is not one I recognise. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can be presumed that this was nominated under Wikipedia:Notability (events). ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, it could indeed be presumed; after all, that's what AfD is mainly for. I was trying to make the point that when nominating, it would be help if the basis was expressly stated — maybe even cite the specific policy. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IHateJulian[edit]

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

Fails GNG Patriot0239 (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including The Hype Magazine, Newsbreak, Genius, Deezer, Flipboard, The Source and more. Aboussta (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are not stong sources. We may need coverage on more reliable sources. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's tougher to get coverage in these sources especially in African countries as compared to developed countries. These are well known newspapers and magazines in Jamaica especially The Hype Magazine, Newsbreak, Genius, The Source, Deezer, Flipboard. Aboussta (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources used are blackhat SEO and PR spam. YODADICAE👽 14:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG based on the sources although some of the references have a promotional tone this could be a cultural attribute. Purosinaloense T/K 11:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak keep at best.~~ Delete or dratify at worst. If the Hype, Newsbreak, Source, and Flipboard sources are reliable, then I'm stating ~~Weak keep~~ because they're brief and only talk about specific music videos and songs, which is not necessarily SIGCOV of the rapper himself. I would reject the Deezer and Genius examples because they're user-generated and self-published, making them unusable per WP:UCG. However, this is yet another one of those artists where most of the coverage is in the form of pieces about specific recently-released songs and interviews, which are from independent publications and magazines that look professional but have been accused by users of this encyclopedia of being PR or accepting paid pieces. It's definitely true publications of all industries, not just the music press, are just basically promotional tools (I'd argue the NYTimes and the LATimes are promo press for works of industries from their respective places, and Jacobin, Reason.com, The Nation, and Breibart are promo tools for political causes), and it sickens me to know that, but claims that specific articles are PR or "blackhat SEO" are loaded and need darn good evidence.
The most common evidence I've seen is that there are fiverr pages stating they can help you get an interview or piece on one of many major publications. Thus, any piece from the sources listed on those pages are unreliable because the publications don't state they're accepting paid pieces. However, we don't know whether those are legit or just scammers using bot ratings to look like credible people, thus we don't know if even sources like HipHopDX and the Source use paid and PR pieces. There's also people claiming themselves to be agents on the internet promising artists gigs at notable venues or a filmmaker their work submitted at Sundance, but does that mean Sundance and notable venues are no-longer reputable institutions? No, because it's likely people like that are lying, and there's a possibility those Fiverr pieces are doing the same. I imagine a lot of music sources, including even the most-respected ones like Pitchfork and NME, use PR agents and get money from labels to promote artists with positive reviews of albums and interviews, but I got nothing to prove that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources being used here are not even high quality paid sources, they're flat out black hat SEO and none of them are reliable and have been extensively discussed at WP:RSN and through several AFDs. We do know that Newsbreak isn't an RS and Flipboard because they are user generated and user hosted. YODADICAE👽 20:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newsbreak is user-generated? Well, the more you know. Delete and reject my "Weak keep" proposal. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Newsbreak source is a blocked site on Wiki, but some of his other coverage are good. Also, having been on Radio and Top 50 means that he meets WP:MUSICBIO.Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above passes WP:NMUSIC notable singer specifically within Africa. Although, the article can be improved further. Peneplavím (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The keep votes here are baseless and its clear editors are not actually looking at the sources, just the number. Further, "within Africa" doesn't matter, especially considering he's Jamaican. See the SA below:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.thehypemagazine.com/2020/10/ihatejulian-i-aint-impressed/	pay for publication, blackhat SEO		✘ No
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2217475495191/ihatejulian-focuses-on-his-video-dropping-this-may	news aggregator by AI		✘ No
https://www.hollywoodheat.net/ihatejulian-a-rising-independent-artist-with-jamaican-roots/	?	no indication of editorial oversight, appears to just be a hobby blog	✘ No
https://fmhiphop.com/ihatejulian-is-taking-over-the-music-entertainment-industry/	part of a PR spam campaign	not an rs, new site, no editorial oversight or meaningful history	✘ No
https://genius.com/albums/Ihatejulian/Moody-by-ihatejulian	just a listing of his music	~ only for primary info	✘ No
https://thesource.com/2021/04/15/ihatejulian-has-more-in-store-for-the-fans-with-new-visual/	?	i have serious doubts about the reliability of a source whose first sentence begins "The music career has become more challenging at this period due to the restrictions put in place by the government. ihateJulian, who embarked in the music career at the start of last year, has astonished many for his high starting spirit as he has been releasing hits after hits, and is not yet done!"	✘ No
https://www.deezer.com/en/artist/87794182			✘ No
https://flipboard.com/article/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.influencive.com%2Fihatejulians-new-video-to-give-second-life-to-moody-project%2F	rehash from influencive which is a pr/marketing site (ie. black hat seo)		✘ No
https://hiphop-paradise.com/ihatejulian-set-to-drop-three-music-videos-by-17th-may/	just a basic announcement that could only come from the artist himself		✘ No
http://voyagemia.com/interview/meet-julian-hanlan-ihatejulian-broward-county-south-florida/	voyagemia and its sister sites are black hat SEO "interview" sites that republish paid for content		✘ No
https://thegridmagazine.com/2020/09/29/ihatejulian-i-aint-impressed-remix-ft-starling-lee-cavalli/	more pr		✘ No
https://www.tampafp.com/hip-video-promo-presents-ihatejulian-gets-distracted-in-music-clip-i-aint-impressed-remix-ft-starling-lee-cavalli/	press release		✘ No
https://disruptmagazine.com/ihatejulians-coming-videos-are-of-exceptional-quality/	disruptmagazine is a well known black hat SEO site		✘ No
https://kazimagazine.com/indie-spotlight/ihatejulian-has-proven-himself/		appears to be a fan blog/not subject to meaningful editorial oversight	✘ No
https://thisis50.com/2021/04/26/ihatejulian-focuses-on-his-video-dropping-this-may/		based off of the press release a few sources up	✘ No
https://hiphopsince1987.com/2021/music/another-chart-topping-video-by-ihatejulian-to-be-released-soon/	clearly based off of a press release given the same grammatical errors as the source		✘ No
https://unsignedheat.com/2021/05/06/video-ihatejulian-come-wit-it/	same rehash of "will release a video"	just a blog	✘ No
http://itsbizkit.com/video-ihatejulian-come-wit-it/	basically hte same as 17		✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6451412/		ugen	✘ No
http://theblackjuice.com/2016/10/24/web-series-onthecomeup-close-friends/	press release		✘ No
https://redxmagazine.com/ihatejulian-plans-for-more-in-future/		brand new site, no history and no editorial oversight	✘ No
https://www.maverickentertainment.cc/movies/true-colors/	just a listing from the film		✘ No
https://songbpm.com/@ihatejulian/which-one	for the same reason a measurement of an ig account isn't independent or reliable		✘ No
https://essentiallypop.com/epop/2020/10/ihatejulian-i-aint-impressed/	?	essentially pop has no history or indication of meaningful editorial oversight	✘ No
http://citrusrap.com/blog/2021/01/22/the-bandemic-is-real-a-conversation-with-ihatejulian/		just a blog	✘ No
https://www.genzhiphop.com/julian-a-highly-distinguished-actor-director-and-musician/		just another run of hte mill blog	✘ No
https://maxedhiphop.com/?p=2386			✘ No
Error: a source must be specified			? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

YODADICAE👽 16:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources here are probably not that good, but I find the Kazi mag description of "appears to be a fan blog/not subject to meaningful editorial oversight" to be odd. In my view, the professional layout and design, plus it being constantly updating and having multiple writers doesn't necessarily scream fan site to me. However, the website doesn't make clear it's staff or other info about the publication itself, so that's a valid concern. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also agree that some of the sources are not that good as compared to coverage other musicians get especially from developed countries like the US, UK, Canada, etc. As he hails from an African country where there is little to no coverage online to a large amount of population getting this much coverage is quite tough. Although, I am not sure that if he qualifies for GNG or not but he surely qualifies for WP:NMUSIC because his some songs like "I Ain't Impressed received a good amount of attention in Nigeria and was featured on BET JAMS in 2020 and was also covered in different music websites like Hiphop-Paradise, The Source, Essentially Pop, Genius, The Hype Magazine, Hollywood Heat, Vents Magazine, Kazi Magazine. Skope Mag and others which can surely make him qualify for WP:MUSIC. Aboussta (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YODADICAE👽 already went over why those sources were unreliable. See the table. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already followed the table and didn't added those sources which were marked crossed there. I only showed those sources which shows that his songs like I ain't impressed received significant coverage. As per WP:NMUSIC criteria's. He qualifies WP:NMUSIC Criteria #12 which states that subject has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. He was featured in BET Jams which is an American pay television network controlled by BET Networks and owned by ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks. The channel features hip-hop and urban contemporary music videos. The network, formerly known as MTV Jams, was rebranded under the BET banner on October 5, 2015. His music video "I Ain't Impressed" was featured on BET JAMS in 2020 which meets this criteria and clearly qualifies him for WP:NMUSIC. Aboussta (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are vague. Darktaste (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic seems to meet WP:NMUSICIAN as some of his songs are listed on the major television networks.Jaysonsands (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above an easy pass for WP:MUSIC. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC per listing on some major tv networks. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1996–97 SAARC Quadrangular[edit]

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

Non-notable event, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not 100% certain on the policy for tours, but it was a LA tournament featuring international sides, and there does seem to be some coverage of the tournament online, and there's likely to be more offline or in Bangladeshi sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I just wanted to let you know about WP:NEVENT guideline which says sources should be in-depth, diverse, and has received coverage for a duration. Thanks. Störm (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inclined towards keep as this tournament was held 3 years before Bangladesh became full-members, so has historical relevance for their elevation to Test status. StickyWicket (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd assume this would have been covered, but I'd like to see at least evidence of coverage before voting to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 13:31, 10 May 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) 11:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per stickywicket analysis, as this tournament was held 3 years before Bangladesh became full-members, so has historical relevance. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Rugbyfan22. Otinflewer (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, pursuant to post-relisting changes of previous "delete" !votes to "keep". BD2412 T 00:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of Mercy (TV series)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article is a stub that has existed without references for 3 years. I'm unable to find anything in reliable sources to establish notability. I don't even remember seeing this on Australian TV. AussieLegend (✉) 20:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In this situation, DRAFTIFY would usually be appropriate so that references could be found, but the 3 years already should have been sufficient time. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Note that additional sources have been found and also added to the article after you !voted here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep after seeing the added references. Thanks Northamerica1000. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, to Oriel Gray whose article says she wrote about gender issues, or possibly Lynn Bayonas. Other writers listed at IMDb - Sonia Borg, Anne Brooksbank and Barbara Vernon - have smaller articles. Meticulo (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Redirect to Lynn Bayonas, which is the only one of the articles that mentions Quality of Mercy, though it's unfortunate a home can't be found somewhere for the scanty details from the NFSA source. Meticulo (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Keep, now that article has been improved thanks to Canley's efforts. Meticulo (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't base any decision on what is written at IMDb, it's not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, to Oriel Gray, so users can found some info instead of nothing. Purosinaloense T/K 11:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Purosinaloense: Note that additional sources have been found and also added to the article after you !voted here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This shouldn't be redirected to any one writer's article if there are multiple writers with bio articles. No writer has a greater claim to the series than the others. Plus there's the issue of IMDb being the source for the list. We can't base decisions on sources that are not RS! --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally I would also suggest using DRAFTIFY but I've just checked on NewsBank Australia using my local library membership and not much is coming up. Reader781 (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reader781: Note that additional sources have been found and also added to the article after you !voted here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Keep after seeing the added references from Canley. Reader781 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a shame to lose televisual history when there are no accessible online sources for 1970s media. I spent the day at State Library Victoria and filled in some details referenced to two TV reference books by Albert Moran, and there were two fairly substantial articles in The Age about the "Send Him On His Way Rejoicing" and "We Should Have Had a Uniform" episodes. The IMDb broadcast dates do appear to be wrong, as Canberra Times TV guide listings give June to July 1975 airdates but IMDb says September to October. Regarding the writers and directors, most of them are now referenced, and I believe those that aren't can be sourced to Australian Film & TV Companion by Tony Harrison—there is supposedly a copy at SLV which I couldn't find, but there is also one in the VCA library which I will check out in the next two days. --Canley (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canley's improvements. As I mentioned in my PROD contestation, nationally broadcast things should have sources, but as Canley points out, things of this age are obviously tricky to access. matt91486 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per referenced improvements Boneymau (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General Keep per sources provided by Canley. Since they're not accessible via internet, AGF that they provide significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan McGrotty[edit]

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

McGrotty barely passes WP:NFOOTBALL with one match played. Being cleared of rape don't make him notable either. He also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage about him. Dougal18 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything on him other than a few articles on his legal case. Playing one game or 100 games in a professional league is irrelevant if there is no substantial coverage on the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - played 2 mins of professional football but failed to achieve sufficient coverage from reliable, independent sources so fails WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the view that one short appearance in a second tier match does not override the fact he fails GNG as there seems to be no significant coverage of him. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Construction & Planning Co. Ltd.[edit]

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

Looks like an Advertisement. unable to find significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. GermanKity (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unambiguous spam. I've blocked the creator for spamming. MER-C 14:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy ErDogan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only mentions I can find for him are the same couple of sentences copied from this article by other sites, and some fight announcements; no coverage establishing notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER which is applicable policy for pro wrestlers from NSPORTS. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails notability guidelines. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gyidi[edit]

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

This was first brought to my attention here and I decided to take a look and was baffled that this article has been on mainspace for three years now. The article is an WP:ADMASQ and invariably an undisclosed COI is present. Furthermore, the subject of the article doesn’t fulfill any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO nor do they satisfy GNG or BASIC. Lastly, a review of all the sources used in the article show they are very much unreliable. In the reference section a source claimed that the subject of the article had won an award, yes, this is true, however not only is the award show and the award itself not notable, the “AFOH” award show itself has a negative reputation as they issue awards for a fee. This is arguably one of the best WP:ADMASQ's I’ve seen in my five years of editing. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Until moments ago this singer also had an album article at Believe (Gyidi EP). It had five sources, four of which were dead and the remainder was probably a paid press release. I searched for some reviews of the album and found just a couple that looked quite suspicious and were probably also paid PR. I just redirected the album to the singer's page so it would not fall through the cracks as we discuss the singer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe the nominator nailed it. The singer has been plugging away for several years, but his management has focused on the usual Ghanaian "media" scams and crooked awards that have been shot down as unreliable for dozens (maybe hundreds) of Ghanaian acts during this Wikipedia process. His media coverage is reprints of paid press releases and he has not been noticed by any reliable sources despite years of media blitzing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The singer doesn't meet the WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG, the article stayed on for a long time without being seen as one that had failed all. Ampimd (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Fails WP:MUSICBIO too. Powerful Karma (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Villagrasa[edit]

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

I've been trying to expand a lot of these Spanish footballer stubs recently but Villagrasa just doesn't seem to have any significant coverage that could be used. The Marca source in the article is only a trivial mention. I found a passing mention in a blog, another passing mention in Marca, a match report that mentions her in Futbol Balear and very little else. A search of Spanish sources comes up with nothing other than social media, Wikipedia mirrors and a couple of database websites. None of this contributes towards meeting WP:GNG, which is the minimum requirement. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails notability guidelines. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a proper WP:BEFORE has clearly been done, and shows they don't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amitava Nag[edit]

Edit conflict article moved to Amitava Nag

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

References do not show the notability of the subject. Advertisement. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV GermanKity (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was an edit conflict - at the same time of this AfD nom, I was moving this page to Amitava Nag before reviewing it, Having looked at the artile I do agree with the nominator and recommend Delete JW 1961^Talk 13:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing evidence of notabilty. The cited sources all report what Nag himself has written or said. Maproom (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - There are too many primary sources, and the descriptions of his books are written like personal essays and need to be edited, but there are a handful of reviews suggesting his body of work as a film writer just barely meets the notability threshold. I also found this [[6]]. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete Too many strange sources, not really proving notability at all. However, I am not extremely opposed to the keeping of this article. It seems there is some sort of possible notability to be found here. TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 14:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not taken a deep enough dive looking for sources myself to comment on notability, but I have had to remove copyright volations from the article (and revdeleted the history of course) – wholesale copy-pastes, and some close paraphrasing. For the remaining text, I was unable to find a source of copying, but it nevertheless has multiple hallmarks of infringement. Coupling this with the copying I did find, leads me to the conclusion that the remaining text is likely a copyright violation as well. I cannot be sure, but that where-there's-smoke-there's-likely-fire probability analysis is the risk always run when one engages in this conduct.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not notable, fails WP:GNG and note concerns re: copyright above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder how one went about fixing the capitalisation/edit conflict issue... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeHaven, California[edit]

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

It's perfectly obvious from the topos and aerials that this was a farm, and indeed a book on B&Bs and the like states that "DeHaven Valley Farm was built in the 1870s on a hillside overlooking both the dramatic Mendocino County coast[.]" Google Streetview helpfully shows the same name on the mailbox. There are lots of hits for the public beach on the opposite site of the road, and a lot of stray hits on the name (with or without the space), but all evidence is that this was never a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the tourist guides, too. ☺ There is almost enough to refactor this into DeHaven Creek, parts of whose valley were bought for the state park system in the 1970s, which connects via the Old Branscomb Road to other state park places, which was the course of a logging railroad in the 19th century, and whose forests were logged in the 1960s when the Union Lumber Company was taken over by Boise. Perhaps someone else will find enough to do so. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My favourite kind of article - a non-place sourced to an old gazetteer entry that WP has now made into a place. Not a community (even the beach is closed), even the local place signs signal 'Legget' as the next place up the road. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator Missvain (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Gaillot (artist)[edit]

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

BLP of a musician with a long and productive career. Unfortunately it is sourced to catalogues, a site he owns and other sources that don’t demonstrate notability. There’s no article on fr.wiki for what that may be worth, and I didn’t turn up any other RIS to support a standalone bio. Does not pass WP:ARTIST. Mccapra (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message posted on the talk page for this deletion discussion, copying here: I am in the process to provide moe refrences - there are plenty of them thanks for yout patience Gdefombelle (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Mccapra (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Since he's French, the majority of sourcing will not be in English. I was able to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in French - [7][8][9]. If more is out there, I'm all ears for a stronger keep. But, I do think there is probably some more out there. Missvain (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added several reliable references including yours - I also included testimony from Joseph Bowie web site. Gdefombelle (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination with thanks to Missvain and Gdefombelle for finding more sources. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaka Pili[edit]

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

Non-notable cultural/media personality; cannot find any RS sigcov that's actually about him. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did my due diligence and this subject does not pass WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bois de Belle-Rivière Disc Golf Course[edit]

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

Non-notable disc golf course, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 10:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw this when it came up in the new pages feed. Seeing as it's local to me, I tried to improve the sourcing. I failed to find SIGCOV in either English or French, so it is a GNG fail.--- Possibly (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility of a consensus for deletion, particularly given the same outcome in the recent previous deletion discussion. BD2412 T 00:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rose (podcaster)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unsure he is now all that notable, most of the coverage is for an election he lost. Or they are in fact really about other people. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep An AfD about him less than four months ago was closed as a clear keep. All the citations (and more since) are still extant, and he was always going to be a losing candidate in that election. Not seeing any policy-based rationale for this nomination. Edwardx (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:news, he only got coverage due to an election he lost (as I said), thus he may fail wp:n as he is really only notable for one event (the election).Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. We had a recent AfD and agreed he was notable. An article topic that was once notable cannot become not notable. There are multiple citations in the article that predate Rose's mayoral candidacy. The 'keep' decision last time reflected that; we wouldn't have kept the article just because of the mayoral stuff because WP:NPOL. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you take away all the mayoral converge, how much is left that is in-depth about him?Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding the mayoral coverage, there is a long, in depth piece about Rose in Vice; the Salon and Press Gazette pieces are not primarily about Rose, but do contain significant coverage of Rose. The Telegraph, CNBC and News-24.fr pieces contain significant coverage of his channel London Real and mention Rose. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So then its his channel that is notable, not him. He is only really notable as a scammer (which we do not even appear to mention) so there is a degree of wp:puffery going on. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the prior AfD, some coverage focuses more on London Real, so I did wonder if it was better to have an article on that than on Rose. But I think, combined, it makes sense to have a Rose article on his actions (Vice), London Real stuff (including the Icke interview - Press Gazette/Salon/Telegraph/CNBC/News-24.fr) and his mayoral candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is good enough to pass WP:GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is the guy from those annoying wall to wall YouTube adverts in the run up to the London Mayoral election. He seems to be just about notable enough for an article and I guess people might want to know who he is if he ever pops up again. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am a little confused about the rationale for nomination as he would not be notable in the first place for being a political candidate (see WP:POLITICIAN). The first nomination was decided in February of 2021 with an overwhelming consensus to keep. The subject is notable based on significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all of the above reasons. Many reliable sources have covered multiple spheres of his life and work, including those outside his political candidacy. Gargleafg (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has reliable sources to pass GNG and for all of the above reasons. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Volders. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volderer See[edit]

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

A pond, does not pass WP:GNG. No reliable source coverage found. Rusf10 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added the sources now. Today it "resembles a pond", but has been larger before. --Cyfal (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The hurdle is WP:GNG the references provided, and my own search find nothing the meets the "significant coverage" hurdle. The German article does not add any support either. Jeepday (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge /~~ Redirect to Volders (I wanted to make this a Keep but haven't so far found enough sources to justify a separate article) - but no justification for deletion. Ingratis (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Volders Djflem (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Volders; it may be worth a brief mention there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Volders; as per above suggested. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weiherburgbach[edit]

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

Article claims this is a river. It is less than a mile long and judging by the picture I don't even think this qualifies as a brook or a stream, maybe a drainage ditch? Does not pass WP:GNG. Rusf10 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A brook or stream is also a (small) river. If it provides the zoo with fresh water, it must be more than a simple drainage ditch. The article lacks sources, however it seems to be a translation from the German Wikipedia so sources should have existed at least once before. --Cyfal (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "so sources should have existed at least once before" No idea where this comes from, the German Wikipedia is not 100% based on sources. This creek is not even visible on the map and I don't see notability here. Reywas92^Talk 07:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOLE. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOLAND. The "river" only appears to be mentioned in maps and GPS databases. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Inn (river)#Tributaries, the appropriate target as clearly indicated in Wikipedia:BEFORE: If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. Djflem (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose the merged of unsourced content to another article. If you actually did a BEFORE search (as in before you copied and pasted your standard "failed BEFORE" vote), you would find no sources for the content of this article. At less than a mile long, this is just too insignificant to be mentioned in the Inn River article. Also, I would like to note that what you copied and pasted says AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change, so WP:BEFORE doesn't clearly indicate a target.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete A brook needs more than mere geographical detail to be notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Safe[edit]

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

Unattributed translation from the German Wikipedia. Little indication of notability (only passing references for unimportant performances), and one of the sources used doesn't support the content of the article. The first and third items are intolerable for BLP. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 09:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 09:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 09:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 09:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ANYBIO; also an "intolerable" BLPVIO. ——Serial 09:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gerda Arendt, can this be saved? Drmies (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look: not with the sources we have, but if "several awards" and recordings can be sourced better, perhaps. I am mostly away until Tuesday, patience or look yourself, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An authority control box is present, which is usually a sign of notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely misunderstands the purpose of authority control. ——Serial 11:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching around, I don't see much about her in WP:RS. That said, not included in the article is her winning an "X-Factor-style" ITV1 contest in 2008[10][11], one of the few things I could find. There's also mention of her performing on a Jeff Beck album[12][13], but it's just mentions ... and not in the article. Carter (talk)
Delete. BLP violation. I considered sending it to CSD but there is no criteria that suits. I also considered blanking the page, apart from the nomination, but decided to leave it. Desertarun (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Royal Dutch Shell. Missvain (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Royaldutchshellplc.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was created and largely contributed to by the owner of the website the article is about (Username on early contributions is identical to full name of website creator). It also seems non-notable, having little to no recent mainstream news coverage that I can find, and a large chunk of it's sources are links to shellnews.net, which according to this revision, is a website that is directly associated with the subject of this article. As far as I can tell this article was fully created to be an advertisement. thattransgirl (talk) (she/her) 13:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. thattransgirl (talk) (she/her) 13:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. thattransgirl (talk) (she/her) 13:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete - NN William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Royal Dutch Shell. It is widely cited, but there is next to no discussion of the source itself I can find. It seems parts of our article have been reverse copyviod by [14] (2010 book, content in our article dates to 2009 [15])... A bit of digging found few paragraphs in this book: [16], the publisher is reliable (CRC Press). But that's all I was able to find. I suggest merging a summery to Royal Dutch Shell and softdeleting the entry per WP:PRESERVE. Ping me if better sources are found and I'll be happy to review my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a prominent position on the royaldutchshellplc.com website there is a feature "Links to mass media coverage of our Shell websites". It provides access to numerous articles by the FT, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Dow Jones Newswires etc containing references to the website. Also numerous published books. Please forgive my lack of expertise in adding this information which might assist in deliberations. It is not my intention to add any further information to Wikipedia. Johnalfreddonovan (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Royal Dutch Shell as not sufficiently notable for a discrete article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nakshatra Bagwe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable actor/filmmaker. Claim to be India's first gay ambassador is sensationalised. He was ambassador for 'Moovz' - a non-notable platform. Same goes for Big Boss. Seems to be a carefully crafted controversy. Lot of unsourced material. A complete promo. Created from WP:SPA. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Only objectionable content should be removed, not the entire article. Agreed that almost all references show a weak claim that he was the first and only brand ambassador (Dutee Chand is another. There are probably more in Category:LGBT_people_from_India). But that doesn't trivialize his film career, being one queer ambassador from India, and his activism. The article can be smaller, less fluffy, improved but doesn't need to be deleted.
When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.
— Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#When_to_not_use_deletion_process?
I'll improve it if it's kept since it doesn't seem beyond repair. Doing it right now might just waste the efforts. AdithyaKL (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AdithyaKL, I don't see a significant film career where his work is being noted by reliable independent sources. I don't think any of the film would even qualify WP:NFILM. Activism? Where? The only line that talks about activism is He is a LGBT rights activist and was also a part of the organizing team of Gujarat's first ever pride march. He also spearheaded Gujarat's third and Baroda's first LGBT pride march which is a generic statement and doesn't seem to be a substantial contribution to activism. I think I will also trim it to remove more vanity sources, information that's not about him and then evaluate. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After cleaning up, only trivial mentions. The only notable film that he was a part of was My Son is Gay - that he left. So there are no claims of notability via WP:NACTOR or filmmaker. Coming to the ambassador of Moovz thing, multiple articles basically saying same thing indicates Churnalism. Big Boss source has no credit to any staff writer [17] and is speculation, so no points there either. Calling him activist simply discredits so many real activists that have fought hard for the LGBTQ community in India which is sad. Interestingly, two DNA articles that are cited here are also written by same journalist (Not that they discuss him in-depth. One has a passing mention of his film and in other, someone else talks about the subject in double quotes - so no independence). Most of the remaining sources left are by Gaylaxy which is a niche LGBTQ website. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changed my mind. @Nomadicghumakkad: thanks for discussing. AdithyaKL (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable actor Brd87 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I contemplate closing this as "delete" but decided more input would be welcome before doing so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, falls short of encyclopedic notability at this time. BD2412 T 00:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that the Oxford/Grove encyclopedia entry and the Daily Telegraph obit get over the GNG line. Continued article improvement welcome. Go Phightins! 20:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hey Lloyd[edit]

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

I find little indication that this individual meets WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. The sum total of information I can find about him is from his obituaries (and even of those I only see 3). Primefac (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Hello. I added many references and sources today. Alas, someone has reverted everything which I spent the whole day doing.

Please note that I wrote the first versions of this article in 2009. At the end of that year most of what you have removed recently was already in the article. Please look at and compare the versions from the end of 2009. It was not added, as you believe, from any of his obituaries. There's nothing new in them what so ever. I hope you will understand this: Richard Lloyd was a major figure in church and cathedral music over the last 60 years or so. To delete the article would be somewhat close to removing one about Bach or Mozart. His music has been sung and recorded everywhere over the last decades. Musicians all around the world will not accept the deleting of this article. If there is anything else I can add or change in the article please do let me now. I too am a professional musician and know how important this article for the world of music is. Many thanks! Edmund — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebrownless (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy for that to be the case, but there are still no references pre-death that verify or even indicate that is true. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the complete article on Richard Lloyd is reloaded I will be able to add the following important reference: There is an article about Richard Lloyd's life in The Oxford Dictionary of Music - (6 ed. 2013). It confirms all information about him as a musician. If he weren't very important in the world of music he wouldn't be in this book. Ebrownless (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: The book which I quoted in the original article (The Organists and Organs of Hereford Cathedral) also confirms everything pre-death about Richard Lloyd. It was published in 1976.Ebrownless (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Ebrownless I checked what you had added. I think you had only used one citation and most content was uncited. If you can maybe just add a bit of info with what has citations, I will review and place a vote. Most important is to add as many good citations as you can find to show notability, even if its a book. Again, do not add any content that is uncited. Also, do you have a Conflict of Interest with this person? why are you interested in this person. If you are somehow related or working for them, you need to disclose it.Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the last part - he is dead, so "formerly worked for" might be more appropriate. Primefac (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a long-standing, stable article, with good sources. In late April, Lloyd died. The stable version of the article prior to this is here (9 April 2021), and the article had good biographical information, albeit, not as well sourced as it might have been. His death actually prompted the provision of source citation, improving the article. Some time later, edits were made removing almost all that information; then an AfD made based largely on absence (i.e. that very recent removal) of sourced biographical information! If the AfD discussion is to continue it should be based on the significant article (e.g. 9 April 2021 linked above, and since reliably sourced), not on its interim, short-term denuded form. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Feline, thank you for your latest work on the article. My version from May 21st is more up to date - I had added new recordings and many citations etc. I have spent the past week intensively researching the life of RHL and will now add some more information and citations to your latest version. Richard Lloyd was primarily a composer of choral music - that is what he is so well known for. I will therefore add again the list of his choral music. Ebrownless (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My chief concern was that the AfD appeared to be based on a massively denuded form of the article, thus was based on a false premise. So my overarching "big picture" aim was to restore some reasonably recent, stable form of it. My apologies if that restoration omitted some of the "fine brush-stroke" material you had added in the notability/AfD maelstrom! Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! No problem - I understand. I have now finished making all my additions and corrections. I really hope that the article will now be permanent. Ebrownless (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to understand what the problems are here. 1 I wrote the original article on Richard Lloyd with few references because the book which I used - an official publication by Hereford Cathedral in England - had his biography in it up until his retirement. I have now added many more citations about him and I am sure this will be enough. This book from 1976 has been republished in 1988 and 2005. There are many internet pages about Richard Lloyd - they have exactly the same information: whether from the book published by Hereford Cathedral or, as so often happens, very many are linked to the article on Lloyd at Wikipedia. Richard Lloyd is now in several international encyclopedias of music. The book was written by two very well-known and important musicians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkins_Shaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Massey_(organist) 2 Then comes the issue with Lloyd's compositions. I added the list of compositions which was proof-read by Richard Lloyd himself: There are the names of the compositions and the well-known British publishers of all his many published works. 3 If you look at the lists of compositions of most famous composers most of them do not have references. Why this is necessary just for Richard Lloyd I really don't know. If I, eg., were to add references now to all of Franz Schuberts songs it would take 636 references. This would be the same for all composers - even the most famous - it would simply take up far too much space and clutter up each article with far too much unnecessary information. However, if there is a Wikipedia article for any very famous composition one can rightly add a link to that page. 4 When I added references to Lloyd's works recently I simply added one link to a search at each publisher for works of Richard Lloyd. If anyone here were to click on these links you would find all Lloyds works which are now available at that publisher. Please try clicking on the first reference to his choral music: you will instantly find 35 pieces by Lloyd. I could have added a reference for each work and there would be hundreds of references - most of them repeating themselves. Right now there is simply one link per publisher and that makes everything clear and simple. Do you want me to add a few hundred footnotes to the page of Richard Lloyd now? It will be a mess and the list of references will be several metres long.Ebrownless (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebrownless: The topic here is whether or not to delete the entire article. That should be the main concern. To defend the article's very existence, the primary need is a good biography section to establish his notability with reliable sources. I think it is going to be harder to defend the inclusion an entire catalogue of absolutely everything he has ever written; we should appreciate that this is a secondary issue. Possible models for the "look and feel" of the article might be Jean Langlais, Harrison Oxley or Nicholas Danby (I pick those at random). They are, at heart, about the biography with a few selected works and recordings. I would suggest keeping focus on: (1) biography (2) a small number of works and recordings that meet "notability". Losing the catalogue is relatively unimportant compared to losing the entire article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obituary in the Daily Telegraph. An obituary in a major national newspaper has always been considered to meet our notability requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep obit in Daily Telegraph, a newspaper of record, coverage also in [18]. He also has a brief entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Music, [19], indicative of some amount of notability. There's less coverage than I'd expect, but I think it's just about enough to establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Daily Telegraph and Oxford Dictionary of Music which are two high quality sources, passes WP:Basic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed, wrong process. This should have been brought to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cappadocian scoundrels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cappadocian scoundrels (2nd nomination)

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

Does not appear to be a known or established phrase or expression for designating the topic under consideration. GX, May 1971 (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong process, should be at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of Apollo[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Only one published work by a band formed in 2021. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 07:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 07:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 07:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 07:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Speedy delete has also been proposed as I write this). New band with one song and no notice beyond their own social media accounts. Article is probably an attempted self-promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vellinakshatram (2004 film)[edit]

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

Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Lack of reference is what defines failing WP:GNG no indication it can pass WP:NFILM. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Im new to deletion discussions. This is a popular horror movie in Malayalam. What should be done to not get this article deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla (talk • contribs) 08:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seeing this was a surprise for me as this was one of the highest grossing Malayalam movie of that year. I would like to show some sources here. https://malayalam.indianexpress.com/entertainment/supriya-menon-trolls-husband-prithviraj-420354/ https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/regional-indian-cinema/prithviraj-sukumarans-vellinakshatram-and-other-horror-films-to-watch-on-spooky-weekend.html https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/regional-indian-cinema/prithviraj-sukumarans-films-where-he-essays-the-role-of-a-doting-and-loving-family-man.html https://malayalam.filmibeat.com/news/director-vinayan-about-baby-tharuni-028306.html. Some Malayalam speakers might be able to help here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla (talk • contribs) 13:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's very hard to get sources for movies that got released before 20's. And it's a fact that to get much sources for old movies is hard and whereas it's easy to get many amount of press coverage for movies after 20's because media coverage are more during this days. Although it's hard, a simple Internet search gives many articles about thius film. So before just nominating all the old movie article for deletion, I request the nominator for better search for some sources WP:BEFORE nominating for Afd.-❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 13:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I have little faith in this editor and their rationales for deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaepernick Publishing[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Patriot0239 (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Patriot0239 (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets GNG. I've added a few sources and made other minor improvements. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 20:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CORP and the variety of sources that were in the article and have been added; per WP:CORPDEPTH, multiple independent and reliable sources provide an overview, description, commentary, [...] discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization and it appears to be a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. Per WP:AUD, the sources include national/regional news outlets such as CNN, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and CBS News. Beccaynr (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terminus Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Patriot0239 (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Patriot0239 (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has indepth coverage in Forbes [20], GulfNews [21], TechRadar [22], ForbesChina [23], Arabian Business [24] and many more. Prospsfs (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources seem to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP: The Forbes source is a contributor article and is equivalent to a blog, which is not reliable (WP:FORBESCON). The TechRadar, GulfNews, and Arabian Business are trivial coverage as they discuss the companies participation in an event. The Forbes China source seems to be an interview which is a primary source. Jumpytoo Talk 21:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV of the actual company, only things that come even close are focused on its proposed "AI city" in China. Jumpytoo Talk 21:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search brings up much more sources. This article is poorly sourced. Here are some additional in-depth coverage: [25][26] [27] [28] [29] . Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above have enough coverage to satisfy NCORP and GNG. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have enough sources availble to pass notability bar. Zackdasnicker (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Argument for deletion was prima facie already weak, and this is simply a SNOW keep. Nominator has been asked on their talk page about their rationale behind their various deletion nominations, but this admin doubts their good faith. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gihan Ibrahim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG lacks coverage Patriot0239 (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Patriot0239 (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 06:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage in independent reliable sources, both journalistic and academic, across a period of several years. I believe it meets WP:GNG. I will work to further strengthen article sourcing. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 06:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: multiple sources and cover of TIME, meets WP:GNG.-- Dewritech (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very obviously meets GNG. Furius (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 18:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 18:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very well referenced article. pburka (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG; I also added this 2012 Los Angeles Times source, which is more than a trivial mention. Beccaynr (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meerayude Dukhavum Muthuvinte Swapnavum[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM Powerful Karma (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been added. Subject passes WP:GNG and WP:FILM.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to the addition of sources by TheWikiholic. Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Read WP:BEFORE and try to add some sources before nomination for Afd and improve the open knowledge.-❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 14:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nice to see some unity. Jupitus Smart 03:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onnaman[edit]

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

A non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The movie was released 20 years ago and starred Mohanlal, who is probably the biggest actor in Malayalam cinema. It is impossible to find reviews that are online now, though considering the star cast and crew, it is evident that the movie was reviewed in all mainstream publications. I was able to find a review which is still online from Sify - [30]. There is also an online version of the printed matter detailing the controversies in the movie and its huge financial loss from Mathrubhumi - [31]. There are also multiple mentions of the movie in multiple Rediff articles before its release - [32], [33]. The movie's failure has also been mentioned in other articles about the star actor - [34], [35] and in a zillion articles about Pranav Mohanlal which can be found by a casual search. Merits a keep. Jupitus Smart 14:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above such as the sifi review, rediff and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Moon Aviation[edit]

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

No WP:RS in article on this charter airline that operated one aircraft over a two-year period. A WP:BEFORE finds six newspaper articles in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, all from a two month time period spanning the corporation's founding, that described it had landed the transport contract for the Minnesota Timberwolves. As this is WP:ROUTINE, the article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And it is a textbook case why "currently" should not be used. Kablammo (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP; the coverage consists entirely of trivial mentions and local or limited-interest coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a deleter OP should seek trade pub references to build sources. Brent Severnie (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jérémie Laheurte[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR. Contested prod and redirect. – bradv🍁 04:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only notable for his brief relationship with Adèle Exarchopoulos (in fact, this article had been redirecting to Adèle's for months). Unless expanded from frwiki, it needs to be deleted. Ron Oliver (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Powerful Karma (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bosco Tuyizere[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. In terms of GNG, there are passing mentions in Google News but most are not related to the subject, and so without significant coverage its not enough for him to pass WP:GNG. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 04:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 04:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 04:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 04:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, Fails WP:NCRIC with no international or FC/LA/T20 appearances, and a search doesn't bring up anything that would constitute GNG coverage. Not seeing a suitable WP:ATD to redirect too either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. I had PROD'ed this, so absolutely no idea why it was contested when it's a clear cut deletion. The user stated it was de-PROD'ed per WP:DEPROD but actually fails to adhere to what's in DEPROD! StickyWicket (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG or any of the criteria of WP:NCRIC, as he hasn't played first class cricket or in an ICC senior cricket tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was vandalism reverted and speedily closed. The nominator is admonished to be more aware of circumstances like this before making an AfD nomination. BD2412 T 03:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DKS[edit]

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

Verifiability and notability issues. No sources provided, and none can be found, though an Hindi search may yield some. BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to this revision and likely protect the page; this is a dab page that has been hijacked. Hog Farm _Talk 03:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I didn't realize. Thanks for the info. BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kidding on the square[edit]

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

Blank article. Unless an inter-wiki redirect is sufficient reason for a blank article? BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having a blank article that is an interwiki redirect is ok, as long as it meets certain requirements. Per WP:SSRT, Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. This article does not fit that statement and therefore should be deleted. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty article. No value. Tessaracter (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Le Van Cho[edit]

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

Being interviewed by Ken Burns does not a notable soldier make. No substantial sources discuss him. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Repeated references to the Ken Burns series isn't SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As documented below, vi:Lê Văn Cho's wartime experiences have enough coverage by prominent sources to make him "notable" per guidelines in WP:NBIO. -Darouet (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (changed to Weak Delete, see discussion below) - Le Van Cho (vi:Lê Văn Cho) is a minor figure in the Vietnam War, but his appearance in the Burns documentary resulted in descriptions of his combat and experiences in multiple media sources, including the PBS documentary itself [36], the Alfred A. Knopf book based on the documentary [37], and minor references in The Ellsworth American newspaper [38], and a far-left socialist UK newspaper the Socialist Worker [39]. One of Van Cho's experiences during the war is described in a 1988 publication [40] by the Dong Nai publishing house in Vietnam [41]. While Lê Văn Cho is a minor figure of the Vietnam War from an American perspective, his being featured in a major documentary has led to coverage in a number of prominent sources. This coverage meets the requirements of WP:NBIO, that

the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.

On a philosophical level, we also need to take WP:WORLDVIEW into account. Much of our Vietnam War content on Wikipedia represents American or anglophone viewpoints and experiences. This is a necessary artifact of more extensive anglophone media interest in and contact with American or Australian participants in the war. Abiding by WP:NBIO directives, we can work to make sure Vietnamese experiences described in reliable sources are also represented on Wikipedia, and should do so by maintaining this short biography. -Darouet (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment there isn't SIGCOV of him and certainly nothing that establishes that he is "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". In relation to your worldview comments, they still need to have SIGCOV whether that is in English, Vietnamese or another language and again he doesn't meet that minimum requirement. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - re: certainly nothing that establishes that he is "worthy of notice" or "note" - the sources I linked concluded he was worthy of notice, and that’s why they interviewed him extensively, and then wrote about him. His wartime experiences are “remarkable” and that is why they are remarked upon by sources. -Darouet (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sources are limited in scope and largely repetitive and his wartime experiences are WP:MILL for a PAVN soldier. Mztourist (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I like the WP:MILL essay. It explains that multiple high-quality maps document the existence of millions of roads on earth, the vast majority of which don't require Wikipedia articles to describe them. I agree with that.

Here, the equivalent would be the registers listing the millions of people who served in the armed forces and/or died during this conflict. Those people are often (not always) mentioned somewhere in reliable documents, and they shouldn't have articles written about them. But of those millions of people, very few have their experiences described in detail by a Ken Burns documentary, or by a book that's closely related to the documentary. That documentation in very prominent sources, and the resulting passing references in a few others, passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, as I've documented above. -Darouet (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being an interviewee in a Ken Burns documentary doesn't make a person notable, not without SIGCOV in multiple RS, which Le Van Cho doesn't have. All this page says is he was a PAVN soldier who served near the DMZ and took part in the 1968 battle of Quang Tri, which is completely run of the mill for a PAVN soldier during the war. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You edit a lot on military history topics, which is great. But as a result of your expertise in the area, something that's fascinating and quite striking to other people is obvious to you. Lê Văn Cho's military experiences were prominently featured in that documentary [42], and as a consequence also in a book [43] by Alfred A. Knopf, and mentions in a few other places [44][45]. I know everything he says seems obvious to you, but it's not to other people, and this coverage definitely meets the bar for WP:NBIO. -Darouet (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One passing mention in the book. Not a good sign. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend and Mztourist: I've gone back to the Knopf book and Clarityfiend is correct: the book only mentions Van Cho in passing one time. Furthermore, I've gone back to the documentary, and as far as I can tell, Van Cho is mentioned only briefly twice, in two episodes (based on a transcript search). This is contrary to my recollection but I must have been wrong. I'm modifying my vote to a "weak delete." It is painful to destroy something you've brought into the world but you both have convinced me — an inclusionist! — that coverage is minimal. I am not voting for a full "delete" since the assemblage of sources does make a case for keeping the article, demonstrating that Van Cho's experiences are notable. -Darouet (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benwood Junction, West Virginia[edit]

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

I can find a lot of passing mentions to this place in rail contexts, but not much significant coverage. It seems to have been the junction and rail yard south of Benwood, West Virginia, but I can't find much significant written about it. Hog Farm _Talk 01:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 01:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 01:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As an assumedly-populated unincorporated community, might it not meet "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." - or are unincorporated communities not legally recognized? BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's some lengthy backstory to this sort of nomination. Essentially, a handful of editors created thousands of these claiming "unincorporated communities" based on a single database known as GNIS, which is largely unreliable, and the "unincorporated community" phrasing in this case is likely false. Benwood Junction seems to have been a railroad junction/railroad work yard, not a community. Hog Farm _Talk 03:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sole source here is a GNIS record. The especial lie of the "unincorporated community" claim this time around is that the code given in the GNIS record is for a place that is located within an incorporated place, i.e. Benwood in this case. This is a railway junction, with a yard (as stated by lots of things such as Railfan and Railroad magazine), at Benwood. Anything about the railways in Benwood, West Virginia, such as the explanation of the loop from ISBN 9781439619377, goes in that article or in the article on whichever is appropriate of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad or North Western Virginia Railroad. The single sentence in this article is a falsehood not even supported by its single source. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restorative leadership[edit]

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

WP:ORPHAN for a long time that lacks WP:SIGCOV. Kstern (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEOLOGISM article by WP:SPA author. An alternative could be redirecting to Triple bottom line. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson, Ohio County, West Virginia[edit]

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

I'm concerned that this may not be a notable location. Appears on the earliest topographic maps as a single building along the railroad tracks, and the label soon disappears from the maps. Appears in old railroad directories as Wilson's, but I couldn't find any significant coverage of this place as either a community or a railroad feature. This doesn't seem to be a notable place. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm concerned everything made by this user may not be notable locations. Reywas92^Talk 03:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The GNIS record, the sole source here, itself comes from a 1906 map, it says. A 1920 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers map in The Ohio River has a Wilson Station on the railway on the east side of the river. Gannet's 1904 A Gazetteer of West Virginia has seven different Wilsons, a Wilsonburg, a Wilsondale, a Wilsonia, and a Wilson Knob, none of them even in the right county. The 1902 History of Wheeling City and Ohio County, West Virginia has too many people named Wilson to be useful. The same with Rice's and Brown's 1993 West Virginia: A History. Other than a railway station name, I have found nothing. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TOIlet[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks WP:RS to meet WP:NPRODUCT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NC State–South Carolina football rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:SYNTH: None of the sources actually discuss this as a true rivalry, just two teams who were once in the same conference who played a bunch of games against each other. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG policy. The minimal current sourcing of the topic is WP:ROUTINE of frequent opponents. Examples of non-routine coverage might include RS articles which list the most memorable games in a rivalry, reference the current all-time W-L record or winning/losing streaks in the rivalry, include player and coach quotes about the rivalry, and similar expansive/specific coverage beyond a trivial mention. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to keep. The series has a long history dating to 1900 and has been contested 58 times. It is evenly split and features Power Five programs from bordering states. The teams also played each other as the last game of the season for several years. These are factors that can contribute to a rivalry. (1) This article ("Where Does NC State Rate as a South Carolina Rival?") presents a reasoned argument that it constitutes at least a secondary rivalry. See also (2) here and (3) here for some in-depth analyses of the series. There are also references to the series as a rivalry in mainstream media outlets. E.g., (4) Sports Illustrated here ("The University of South Carolina and North Carolina State University will renew their rivalry on the gridiron during the 2030 and 2031 football seasons."), (5) the Associated Press here ("ending a long-standing rivalry with 25 wins apiece ...In a football rivalry that began in 1900 and ended Saturday, North Carolina State’s win brought the series with South Carolina to a 25-25-4 deadlock."), (6) WIS (TV) here ("South Carolina and North Carolina State will square off renewing their storied rivalry with a pair of games to be played in 2030 and 2031."), and ~~(iv) News Break here ("South Carolina football: Gamecocks and Tar Heels renew rivalry")~~. Cbl62 (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those evidence an actual rivalry. As we know from other AfD discussions, many American journalists will use the term rivalry to describe two teams playing each other in passing as opposed to describing an actual rivalry match, and none of those sources do anything to make me think these two teams treat each other as a rivalry match - all of them use the word in passing, and don't really go any further. The SI article was provided by South Carolina, the AP article is more about how the teams will move conferences after the game, and the Newsbreak article talks about a different university together (North Carolina) which also doesn't appear to be a rivalry. We need something more than a journalistic turn of phrase to get this past WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right on News Break. But others (including Sports Illustrated, Associated Press, and The Post and Courier) are mainstream media outlets, and the first three items do go into significant depth. As I said, I lean "keep" but this is one that could reasonably go either way. Cbl62 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per UW Dawgs. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SportingFlyer. You think something like this would get a solid mention here, but it doesn't. Anecdotally, I'm a NC State student and I've never heard of this supposed rivalry. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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