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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hog Farm _Talk 04:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sistranser Bach[edit]

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

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

Article claims this is a small river, but I can't verify its existence. Article also claims it has "excellent water quality". Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The German WP article is nearly identical, except it leaves off the water supply part and has a picture of a tiny creek in what looks to be a culvert. I can't see how this is notable. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 1 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 to delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SNP Trade Union Group[edit]

SNP Trade Union Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails WP:RS, in fact there are no sources for this article when nominated. It also fails WP:GNG Angryskies (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Structural component of the SNP;^[1] possibly second largest membership organisation in Scotland.^[2] Easily passes the GNG.^[3][4][5] AfD is not clean up.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Would appear to be notable enough, as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not cite any references to demonstrate it's notability. The article can be draftified if necessary for improvements. --RaviC (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RaviC: It doesn't matter whether the sources demonstrating notability are cited in the article itself. See WP:ARTN. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article in the The Scotsman is an opinion piece, it's not clear to me that the 5-person Source News is a reliable source, and I only see passing mentions in the books The Scottish National Party: Transition to Power and States Falling Apart?: Secessionist and Autonomy Movements in Europe; I wouldn't count those towards WP:GNG/WP:ORGCRIT. The article from The Herald is significant coverage and a reliable source that should count towards GNG/ORGCRIT. Are there others though? I could only find passing mentions elsewhere. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ MarkH21: I stand corrected regarding the use of sources in the article. I'd also note your analysis seems to prove a lack of RS coverage for this group. --RaviC (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment More sourcing.^[1][2][3][4]

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per new sources (some of which I found on my own search prior to checking prior AfD comments, lol!) I'll incorporate them into the article if it's closed to keep. jp×g 04:20, 17 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 to delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khans of Sahiwal[edit]

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

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

Non-notable family, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: Seems like a good topic and interested users may develop this into a better one in the drafspace. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Draftify It seems there is coverage, with a 4minute search found two references, so there is more out there. scope_creep^Talk 18:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. These seem to me like credible sources, and I don't know how much more coverage you can ask for about something that happened in the 1500s. jp×g 03:18, 17 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. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lanser Bach[edit]

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

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

This is an unsourced article. It is not clear to me what this actually is. Is it a river? (according to the article it is, but I don't believe it) Is it a brook? Or just a drainage ditch? (as it appears in the photo) Whatever it is, it does not appear to be notable since I cannot find any sources. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning delete There is a German WP article but it says even less than the English article; there are also a couple of other commons pictures, which show a very small creek running through a field: one could easily stand straddling it. Bach would generally translate to "brook" or "creek", so at this point this seems to be a rather minor stream. Mangoe (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero news results and two book results which seem like passing mentions ("Weil der Lanser Bach wegen seiner Wasserbringung für die beiden Badeanstalten als Vorfluter praktisch ausschied , blieb nur die Entscheidung zwischen der zweiten und dritten Möglichkeit über . Und nun galt es für die Gemeinde ..." → "Because the Lanser Bach was practically ruled out as a receiving water for the two bathing establishments because of its water supply, only the decision between the second and third option remained. And now it was true for the congregation ..."). Nothing to phone home about. jp×g 03:26, 17 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 01:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taru Mateti[edit]

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

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NSPORT. The subject is clearly an amateur runner. Only passing mentions in RS, no substantial coverage anywhere. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not competing at the elite level of the sport and does not have significant independent coverage for general notability. SFB 22:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BASIC; all references are to running results. No secondary sources. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:48, 13 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 12:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table of years in film[edit]

Table of years in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Either a duplicate of List of years in film, or of Template:Year nav topic5, or Template:Years in film. We don't need a table article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_years_in_film as a redundant fork. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; another copy of this arrangement of the information doesn't seem particularly helpful or necessary. jp×g 03:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Duplicates functionality of List of years in film and Template:Years in film, where the former transcludes the latter. There is nothing to merge, and since this is an unlikely search term there is no need for a redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 05:08, 17 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 23:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pom-o-sa Heights, Missouri[edit]

Pom-o-sa Heights, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable location. Newspapers.com brings up one auction announcement and 12 real estate listings. Searching brings up some HOA stuff for Pom-o-sa Heights but basically nothing else. Doesn't seem to be anything we can really significantly say about this place. Hog Farm _Talk 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The source in the article is literally a dot on a DOT map. The map legend classifies these dots as "other cities and towns". I tried looking for sources for this, also using "pommosa" given that that is the name of the road. I couldn't find anything actually documenting this subject in depth, although as per Hog Farm there are suggestions that this is simply a housing estate. This is legally recognized (given that people are buying and selling, and the land ownership is recorded), populated, and not notable. Uncle G (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete HOA subdivisions are not notable, no indication this is an exception. Reywas92^Talk 07:17, 13 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 23:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kekirawa Central College[edit]

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

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

Fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL / WP:GNG, lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. YouTube is not an acceptable source. The article appears to be entirely based on original research. Dan arndt (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is effectively unsourced and WP:BEFORE disclosed only non-RS; Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, other wikis, etc. There is evidence this school exists but no evidence in the article or searches that this is a notable school. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG; lacks any reliable independent secondary sources; as per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — unsourced vanity/peacockery piece on a non-notable school. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article comes off like a vanity blog post/personal essay and I couldn't find anything about it in reliable sources anywhere. Not even the usual trivial name drops in articles about other subjects that a lot of schools have. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:39, 16 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 23:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggins Hill (Missouri)[edit]

Wiggins Hill (Missouri) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng, also per this and this precedent. Geschichte (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Precedent is not a correct way to build an encyclopaedia. Notability is not a blanket. One has to look at each subject on its merits. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree that notability is not a blanket, so it's unfortunate how many articles such as this there are from this creator. No newspapers.com hits, no indication this is a notable area of higher-than-average-elevation land. Reywas92^Talk 07:13, 13 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 00:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tribby Mountain[edit]

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

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

Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng, also per this and this precedent. Geschichte (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Precedent is not a correct way to build an encyclopaedia. Notability is not a blanket. One has to look at each subject on its merits. Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don’t see a proper WP:BEFORE, so I don’t see a good reasoning. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators are NOT required to explicity spell out "I did a google search and a bing search and a yahoo search and a library of congress search and found only X, Y, and Z, which are not adequate." Stating that the subject does not meet our requirements is a good reasoning. If you have nothing useful to contribute here, such as your own sources that would pass GNG and GEOLAND as the nominator pointed out, then go away rather than make useless bad-faith accusations. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero mentions in newspapers.com, zero search results of substance, just mirrors and map labels. No indication there is any significant coverage of the small hill of this mass-produced page. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 14 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) Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Colorado Springs shooting[edit]

2021 Colorado Springs shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not a newswire, newspaper, or live blog. And Wikipedia editors are not journalists. KidAd • SPEAK 22:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Oh, please. Mass shootings of this magnitude always receive lasting coverage and are always notable, one does not a crystal ball for that. Nsk92 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass shootings of this magnitude always receive lasting coverage and are always notable^{[citation needed][dubious – discuss]}. KidAd • SPEAK 23:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To play devil's advocate, we don't have a lot of articles on private residence shootings with these kinds of death tolls unless we can prove there's more notability than just based on the death toll itself. Love of Corey (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:RAPID. Nominated for Afd with no Prod in about 80 minutes. WP:NOTNEWS can't even be assessed in that short time. Remember that WP:RAPID says "It is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate...to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge." 80 minutes is clearly not enough time for clear picture of notability to be established. Also no prod means that this should be closed ASAP due to WP:RAPID. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per above, given that the article was nominated so soon after it was created gives concerns if WP:BEFORE was observed and if WP:NOTNEWS even applies. This is still a developing event, so I would venture to say to wait a week or two before discussing this article's eligibility. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-speedy keep per above comments; although likely not ITN worthy, and none of the speedy keep criteria apply, KidAd is directed towards WP:RAPID.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - I'm not convinced this article will become notable in the long term, but we still don't know anything about the shooter or the victims right now. Let's wait a week for any new information to come out, and if there's nothing that can make this shooting distinct, we could revisit this deletion discussion. Love of Corey (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, at least for now also per WP:RAPID. Wizzito (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I thought this AfD was already closed? Love of Corey (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was closed by someone who had first voted in it, which isn't allowed. Fram (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is notable as 5+ people have died and it occurred in a place where mass shootings of this death size don’t usually happen in the US, so it will have a lot of coverage, thus making it notable. • • rslashthinkong (User page) (User talk page) 12:36, 10 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) CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ehricks[edit]

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

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

While he did play in two World Cup qualifiers and appeared in one Caribbean Cup qualifier according to the stats sites, Ehricks comprehensively fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since when are we deleting article on international footballers? His surname also seems to be spelt Ehrichs in some sources, and on a quick look, there are at least a couple of sources about him under that spelling: [1], [2]. I believe it's likely there is more coverage of him, but Puerto Rican newspapers don't seem to have a prominent online coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The misspelling at least explains why there was so little coverage of him. I still don't see significant coverage - almost all of it is from Hofstra and not secondary, so I won't be withdrawing: for instance he's headlined here but there's only one mention of him in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 11:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Joseph - international player. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 11:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• He still clearly fails WP:GNG. As far as I can tell (having searched the archives of major Puerto Rican newspapers), it's impossible to improve with secondary reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two of the international caps, were starts where he played the full matches against at the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Second Round against Honduras. Someone blanked a couple of references to this back in early 2011, that I've restored, though they are now dead URLs. I couldn't confirm the third cap, however 2010 version of the PR team article says 3 caps. Nfitz (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of Puerto Rican references. Nfitz (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ehricks isn't mentioned in the lede of either of those articles - would you mind copying the text where he's mentioned so we can determine whether they pass WP:GNG? They don't seem promising to me, neither of those stories are specifically on him. SportingFlyer T·C 10:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's only a sentence or two. Proquest access is available through the Wikipedia Library Card to any regular editor here. See https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ and use these links one, two to see the whole article, and not just the lead. I wasn't trying to imply they were great GNG references. The two broken links would be better - well at least the one that's independent. Nfitz (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not a single keep !voter has presented evidence that any WP:GNG-qualifying sources exist for this player. Every single source currently in the article is problematic somehow. SportingFlyer T·C 11:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also don't see any GNG-meeting references here, and since NSPORT explicitly defers to GNG it's irrelevant whether he meets NFOOTY. JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An international player passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improvement, not deletion. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:39, 16 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 00:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimited Group[edit]

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

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

no evidence of notability . It is on the LSE, but not the main section: being on its "Fledgling Index" corresponds to what we call not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being listed is no measure of notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sparse content, sparse references. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:56, 13 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 21:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Anane[edit]

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

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

Never played in a WP:NFOOTY-qualifying league (only Regionalliga, and the Slovakian league wasn't fully pro at the time), and in spite of the large number of references fails WP:GNG as none of them are SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He has also played in fully pro V.League 1 for Hòa Phát Hà Nội F.C.. SIGCOV sources are 1, 2, 3, and 4. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:FPL, V.League was not fully pro the year he played in the league. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets GNG and possibly NFOOTBALL, see sources above (although Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source). GiantSnowman 11:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with sources provided (Transfermarkt isn't reliable but Deutsche Welle certainly is!) Nfitz (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets GNG and NFOOTBALL, generally. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:58, 13 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 nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beulah, Gilead[edit]

Beulah, Gilead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The very first edit copies almost word-for-word from this page from a government body. Although this has been linked, it is still a violation of WP:CV. Although subsequent edits have been made, almost all of the content is copied from the aforementioned webpage. However, I do not believe it to be a G12 violation. EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - so sorry, I realised that the article did attribute (although I did double-check the article before nomination, I missed that bit out twice). Can I request a speedy keep? EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Uncle G (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and Speedy keep - this is not a copyvio and this not an AfD issue. The Office of Environment and Heritage is part of the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, and their web content has Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licenses (which the Wikipedia page makes very clear at the bottom) - meaning this isn't an issue. There are a lot of pages with OEH excerpts from the heritage register as there was a concerted effort by a number of editors a few years back to add NSW heritage items to Wikipedia. This page should not have been brought to AfD and I ask the nominator, @EvanTaylor1289: to close it. Deus et lex (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. SPEEDY KEEP. This page meets all the requirements for attribution is NOT WP:CV. This article is one of many articles that have been sourced, in part or whole, from the NSW Government OEH Database of Heritage Items and are sites located in New South Wales that are considered of significant heritage importance to that state. Request nomination be removed ASAP. Rangasyd (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Olympic Return Cup[edit]

2018 Olympic Return Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable U23 friendly tournament, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG, and it's an u-23s tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and not just U23, but U23 friendlies as well.Muur (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:48, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electimize[edit]

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

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

Almost entirely Original Research. Mainly based on the research and work of Ahmed Khalafallah and Abdel-Raheem Mohamed. WP:BEFORE only confirmed that the term and research around the term is done primarily by the duo. The google scholar profile will help to decide. Chirota (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clear attempt to use WP to bolster the subject's notability, rather than reflect it as would be appropriate. I'll eat my hat if this wasn't created by someone close to one or both of the authors of the cited sources. Fails notability, and largely OR per nom. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional content, the paper is cited 12 times. --hroest 00:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above, promotional content. Paper is cited repeatedly, no real notability here. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Almost the entire article seems to be written off of 3 papers published by the same people. There seems to be some duplicate references, if those are ignored the actual number of references should be 4. The only mentions of "Electimize" seem to be from papers written by Khalafallah Ahmed and Abdel-Raheem Mohamed, so I'm not too inclined to trust those. And these are barely cited, per other !votes. Plus, some of the article (especially the "Algorithm steps" section) is WP:OR. HoneycrispApples (talk) 06:35, 15 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. Closing early. Doubtful the sourcing, etc needed for this subject will turn up and make it a keep. Missvain (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Hasan[edit]

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

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

Being a casting director doesn't make him notable. No significant coverage, Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Sonofstar (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:NCREATIVE or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteI couldn't find significant coverage about the subject. Fails notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: References examined. Does not pass WP:NCREATIVE --Whiteguru (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 17:37, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toffler (Club)[edit]

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

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

No significant source. Fails WP:ORG Sonofstar (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't find any refs, and the Dutch Wikipedia doesn't have an article. When the do we can translate it and use their refs. Herostratus (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found [3] [4]. Also some listings with some information for the club and its indoors summer festival. It's a beginning but not enough for keep. Delete for now per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTINHERETED. I'm open to change my mind if there are more articles than this closure incident, including longer listings. gidonb (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My only conclusion here is that the reviewer didn't even bother to check the refs, and since nearly all edits from creation until mine were automated or semi-automated no one else noticed either. I did a quick search for replacements and found nothing useful at the time. Thought about PRODing it, but often those get removed by the it exists so it must be notable crowd. The refs provided above aren't WP:SIGCOV, and I couldn't find any by going through the usual gamut of searches afds conveniently link, nor do I have reason to believe that there are offline sources we could use for referencing here, so ya delete. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 03:14, 10 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gopi Bhagat[edit]

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

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

As per rules the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. DasSoumik (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find plenty of passing mentions but nothing addressing him directly and in depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Weak references as per above. Does not meet WP:NCREATIVE --Whiteguru (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per rule Pinakpani (talk) 15:11, 14 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vector (Polish company)[edit]

Vector (Polish company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Unable to find sources Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails GNG and ORG. Kolma8 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one-liner. The article doesnt even say what the company does. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. One liner. Sheez. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:17, 13 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) 01:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production Kawaii[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ORG. Zero Coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Fails GNG and ORG. Seems as a promotional piece of WP art. Kolma8 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My searching only turned up the agency's own website and channels, and the press release ([5]) used in the article, which was reprinted through some Japanese outlets. I couldn't find any secondary sources. Try searching "プロダクション「kawaii」" to look at the JP results. — Goszei (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - would probably have speedied it under advertising. I mean seriously, a management team which manages a whopping 5 vtubers? Could you identify a company with any less significance than that. All right, perhaps there are pathetic companies which manage 4 vtubers... but then again, maybe not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I understand that there were a number of sources and information missing from the article, and given that the agency is still very new, I am in favour of deleting this article until more reliable information is available to create a new article.--Jcwasheregt (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not quite time yet. But do keep a draft around, and seek both Japanese sources and a human translator. This was my experience with Hololive Production. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:G7. Jcwasheregt is the page creator and !vote delete in the AFD. Link20XX (talk) 20:57, 11 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil665 05:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

¥€$[edit]

¥€$ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of pass of WP:GNG or other criteria such as chart rankings. Sources are primary. nearlyevil665 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - has two reviews from reliable sources cited in the article and also some coverage from Paper so I think that it just about meets WP:NALBUM. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The two secondary sources in the article alongside these other two makes four sources, so it is a definite GNG/NALBUM pass. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In agreement with the previous voters. The nomination was made just 15 minutes after the article was created, and while the main editor was still sprucing it up. The creator should have finalized it in their sandbox first, but the nominator seems to have only looked at the then-current state of the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:11, 10 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 Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institutions of learning in Pakistan during antiquity[edit]

Ancient Institutions of learning in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK of Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent, which already exists. LearnIndology (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge into Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent per nom (WP:CONTENTFORK). LearnIndology (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent. Pakistan is a part of the Indian subcontinent and the institutions of learning mentioned here are ancient Hindu and Buddhist universities at a time when the areas in Pakistan were culturally, religiously and politically a part of India (Pakistan was created just in 1947 through the partition of India). Much of the content here is a WP:CFORK of Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent repeated word for word. The creator of this article seems to have initiated a move war when the article was expanded to include the rest of the Indian subcontinent. Wikipedia has no place for nationalism. Knox490 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Knox490! Pakistan is undoubtedly a part of Indian subcontinent. But the purpose of creating this article was to highlight some aspects of history of learning in Pakistan, not of wider south Asian region I.e this article was meant for institutes of learning in Pakistan only. I tried my best to provide maximum reliable sources for the topic. And actually claims that Pakistan is a part of India are form of "nationalism" which should not have place on Wikipedia. Moreover, the content in this article has not similar topic as "Ancient institutions of learning in Indian subcontinent", it is meant to highlight aspects of a particular region only, not of whole South Asia. I didn't intend to start any edit warring here, but I want to keep the topic according to the purpose. In short, I don't think it fulfills Criteria for deletion. If you have any suggestions for improvement, I will do my best to implement them. Kindly try to see other ways instead of deleting/merging this article; I think that it can be improved instead of removing. Aglrochisat (talk)
• Hi LearnIndology! I already suggested you to create a new article on the topic of wider south Asian history; and I don't think it is form of WP:CONTENTFORK because Pakistan and India cannot be thought as necessarily having shared history and institutes; the purpose of creating this article was to highlight some aspects of history of learning in Pakistan, not of wider south Asian region I.e this article was meant for institutes of learning in Pakistan only. Your thoughts will be appreciated for the improvement of the article. Aglrochisat (talk)
• Support per nomination. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent per Knox490, who's opinion I totally agree with. Also, I don't think it's historically correct to say these places had anything to do with Pakistan when they were around in pre-Pakistanian times. Anymore then it would be accurate for the United States to be cited as the originator or location of anything to do with pre-Colonialist Native American cultures, higher intuitions or otherwise. Doing so would both come off as nationalistic and original research. That said, I'd cavate that the problem could potentially be solved through renaming the article and editing it to not have a nationalistic, original research bent to it, and I'm willing to give the creator the benefit of the doubt that they did not intend to write it that way, but I don't think it's necessary compared to just merging or redirecting it into the other article. Since keeping the article, especially as currently is (but even if it was heavily modified) clearly isn't the best option here. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent. Originally it was Bharath, not Pakistan. Panini, Jivaka, Charaka are Pakis Pakistanis? my, my. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not use slurs. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Whiteguru: Please strike the "Paki" word or remove it. See this. LearnIndology (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi fellow wikipedians ! Looks like the approach to delete this article is backed by idea of nationalism and to refuse existence of Pakistan and its history. Like user Whiteguru has used slurs just to show his hatred, and user Adamant1 thinks that Pakistan cannot claim its history. By creating this article, I didn't expect so much edit warring and such, because it was meant to highlight educational aspects of history of Pakistan. Whatever, if this article gets deleted then I request to change the title of Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent to Ancient institutions of learning in the South Asia, as it would be more comprehensive and neutral. Aglrochisat (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Whiteguru probably isn't aware of the meaning of that term (even I wasn't some time back). Paki is not used as a slur in India, but simply a short form for Pakistanis without any derogatory meaning attached to it. It is used as a slur in western countries. So I have asked him to strike or remove that word.

  Talking about "South Asia", it is too wide to be used here as South Asia includes Afghanistan and Afghanistan is not in the scope of this article. Even if any institution was located outside subcontinent, "India" still would have been preferred for post IVC developments. LearnIndology (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a bit of eisegesis going on here, reading into a text what is not there. I am not aware of that term as a slur, and did not present this in any derogatory fashion. I have lived in India, and the term is indeed short form of Pakistani. I have many, many Muslim friends in South India. My credo is sathyam vada, priyam vada, speak the truth, speak sweetly. That was my intention. So don't go jumping up and down with your interpretation, it is way off course. Sathyam vada, priyam vada --Whiteguru (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  From my perspective I could care less about the history of Pakistan. I do care about not subscribing ythings as having origins in or coming from Pakistan that predated it though. But like I made clear in my "vote" that goes for anywhere and has nothing to do with Pakistan. I'd make the same arguement for any similar article about any other country. I know its a lot easier to malign people over some imagined hatred of Pakistan or claim I think they can't claim simply because I don't think everything in the world (or in history) orginates from them then it is to admit you made a bunk, bias, and historically inaccurate article though. Adamant1 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Really misleading argument. By going with it, one can claim that colosseum existed in ancient Rome, and Italy cannot claim it or acropolis existed in ancient Athens, and Greece can't claim it. You would have to admit that taxila and sharada are in Pakistan, and part of its history. Countries are created, divide and merge throughout history, and what matters for a particular thing is where it is now. There is nothing bias or historically wrong in it, although it hurts some nationalistic sentiments. Aglrochisat (talk) 00:34 ,13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not really. The Colosseum article only uses the word Italy three times and it's not to claim ownership of the colosseum by the Italians. Nor does the Acropolis of Athens make any claim of ownership of the Acropolis belonging to Greece. Aside from saying it is located there in the infobox. More importantly, Acropolis of Athens isn't called Italian Acropolis of Athens. Nor is that how anyone refers to the Acropolis of Athens. More related , [[6]] says "Some of the earliest ancient human civilisations in South Asia originated from areas encompassing present-day Pakistan." Again, there's no claim of Pakistan owning anything there. Let alone that those ancient civilizations or things related to them are in anyway Pakistani. Except for being located in what is now present-day Pakistan.

  So, there's two ways you could look at this, either your framing of claims to ancient history by modern nation states is wrong or the editors of Wikipedia just have deep seeded anti-Greek/Italian/Pakistani/pick any random modern nation state sentiment when it comes to their histories. Personally, I'm going with the first one. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect as above suggested. It would be feasible to convert this to a list article (similar to a disambiguation page), rather than a plain redirect, so that links are made to the articles or sections on individual institutions. Using Pakistan for anything before 1947 is anachronistic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 16 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 don't make any policy-based arguments. Sandstein 12:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler 155[edit]

Kepler 155 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Can't find any published papers with in-depth coverage of this or a small number of other objects. Even the discovery paper is one of many. No popular coverage outside of the large exoplanet databases. Not notable for itself, and I'm thinking the exoplanet not notable either. Lithopsian (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article deprodded by creator without improvement, who did not understand why comprhensive databases such as the Open Exoplanet Catalogue do not count toward notability per WP:ROUTINE. I'll bring Kepler-155c to AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply having an exoplanet is not enough for notability. The exoplanet itself is not notable either. Tercer (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, keep.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In few similar cases, i observe how effort by new, less experienced editors to create pages related to planets in habitable zone, are thwarted by established Wikipedia community. I.m.h.o., this is a bad practice (deletionism) which will negatively affect Wikipedia quality and coverage in far future.Trurle (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination, LaundryPizza03, and Tercer. I suppose it's not an actively harmful page to have around, but Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate pile of factoids. Our astronomy coverage is hardly served by disconnected trivia. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should make it connected and not-trivial. I agree the article is sub-standard, but deletion should be last means after attempts to improve fails. By the way, the article has been significantly improved now.Trurle (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, originally I accepted this from AfC because I thought it had WP:NASTRO passing coverage rather than just database listings, but on further inspection it seems I was mistaken. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:29, 12 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Plagianos[edit]

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

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

I nominated this article for deletion back in 2018 and it was kept since there was only one (other) delete !vote and one keep !vote using sources that I have come to recognize as shoddy and suboptimal for Wikipedia. Looking through a DuckDuckGo reveals only one suitable source for Wikipedia, which is an interview/press release. It was discussed in the 2018 nom that one of his films is notable, but that doesn't make Plagianos himself notable. If he is only barely notable, his status as a living person means we should err on deleting the article.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For me, it's not much sources and all, as, the person just hasn't done enough to be notable for our standards. Yes, he has written, directed, and produced. But according to IMDb he's directed shorts and individual TV episodes, for obscure (I think) shows. Ditto really his producing credits, and ditto writing. I think he may have done this for one or two films but they look really obscure.

The assumption is that this doesn't indicate a notable enough career, in my mind, unless he's got considerable coverage for doing other things. He doesn't, unless its well-hidden. The one good source, an article/interview in Variety, is almost enough by itself to meet WP:GNG, as Variety is very notable and it's a meaty article, and you could probably fill it out with small bits here and there no make a reasonable GNG claim. But a lot of people could meet GNG that don't have articles and shouldn't.

And I mean the Variety article opens with "Filmmaker Elias Plagianos and his team had won the second-annual Science and Tech Script Competition at the North Fork TV Festival". The North Fork TV Festival is not notable enough to have an article here. I suppose it's in North Fork, California, an unincorporated community in the yokel part of California ("North Fork's economy was based in the timber industry until the local lumber mill closed in 1996"). If that's his top achievement... I'm not seeing an article yet. Maybe someday. Herostratus (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The programmable search engine throws up the two results given above, and naught else. BLP aside, this does not meet WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: per nom. Fails GNG for BLP. Essentially WP:2S. Kolma8 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this is the second nomination, deletion is (technically) controversial and thus speedy deletion doesn't apply.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Axcess News[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ORG. kind of spam also, Last news on the site was published on 1st April 2021. Can't find any source. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails GNG and ORG. Kolma8 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought about AFDing this myself, but didn't feel like a WP:BEFORE at the time. Didn't see any RS with WP:CORPDEPTH then and didn't find anything on new searches today either. Lot's of stuff like this that just escapes the notice of anyone who has the time and experience to fix or afd, some of it going back to the Use Mod era. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:19, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Bari[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, There is no indepth, significant coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article reads promotional to me. I couldn't find any proper coverage to pass notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article reads promotional to me, too. Absolutely. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG and yes some of the article does have a promotional tone. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet notability, low number of citations. Peter303x (talk) 02:57, 15 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 Adams CA-2. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Aeronautics Company[edit]

Adams Aeronautics Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nonnotable company, fails WP:ORG Sonofstar (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Adams CA-2 and redirect (If there is anything to merge). Company notable only for the aircraft, no point in having two articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess merging might not be appropriate due to no indpendent & reliable source and Adams CA-2 is manufactured by multiple manufacturers, promoting them there is inappropriate.Sonofstar (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response - the CA-2 article and the Adams website strongly imply that only plans of this aircraft have ever been commercially offered, and never kits. Thus, the "manufacturer" of the aircraft is the individual builder, so it's appropriate to characterize Adams as the successor organization to Corning and Hummel—but the company still fails notability per WP:ORG, as CA-2 plans seem to be its only viable product. (The company also offers plans for another aircraft called the T-100D Mariah, but evidence seems scant that any T-100D has ever flown, so I would argue that it's not notable either. The single photo found online of a "flying" T-100D is obviously heavily retouched and I suspect it's bogus.) Carguychris (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Adams CA-2 per Steelpillow. Carguychris (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Adams CA-2 - except it is already mentioned there in sufficient detail, so essentially this article can just be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Adams CA-2 as per Steelpillow. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:32, 13 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. Passes WP:GNG after improvements to the article highlighted in the discussion (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mírzá Mustafá[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG - A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
There is only one source and it is related to the subject. Serv181920 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I just updated the page with several references and some text cleanup. Still needs some content expansion off the references, and a name change after AFD closes. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I updated the page with two more academic sources, one from Chehabi and one from Iranica. Chehabi says ([7]): "Mustafa Baghdadi, a prominent Bahai of Beirut who had moved there from Baghdad". Iranica says ([8]): "Moḥammad-Moṣṭafā Baḡdādi (b. Baghdad, 1254/1838; d. Iskenderun, 27 Šawwāl 1328/1 November 1910; Figure 1) was an eminent early Arab Bahai and apostle of Bahā-Allāh. From childhood Moḥammad-Moṣṭafā accompanied his father in his activities and waited upon Qorrat-al-ʿAyn, transmitting her messages. In Qazvin he served as a courier between her and his father, delivering his father’s questions to her and transmitting to him her answers (Baḡdādi, Resāla, p. 119). During Bahāʾ-Allāh’s exile in Baghdad and before his declaration in 1280/1863, Moḥammad-Moṣṭafā was among the few who recognized him as man yoẓheroho’llāh (He whom God shall make manifest) foretold by the Bāb and became his devoted followers. ʿAbd-al-Bahāʾ designated him as “the leader among the friends in Iraq” (1971, pp. 131-32). Renowned for his strength and courage, many Bahais took shelter with him whenever they were harassed or in trouble." Tarikhejtemai (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Smkolins (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC) see:[reply]

• Ramsey Zeine (2006). Iraj Ayman (ed.). "The Bahá'í Faith in the Arabic Speaking Middle East; Part 1 (1753-1863)". Lights of 'Irfán; Haj Mehdi Armand Colloquium. 7. Wilmette, IL: National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States: 267–8. Mírzá Muammad Mustafa Baghdadi was the son of Shaykh Mu ̇ammad Shibl. Mr. Balyuzi provides us with a synopsis of his life:… Mírzá Mustafa, who was born in Baghdad in about 1837.…In 1874 Mírzá Mustafa was arrested along with many others of the Bahá'ís of Baghdad, …. Bahá'u'lláh instructed him to take up his residence in Beirut where he was frequently of service to those Bahá'ís travelling to 'Akká. After the ascension of Bahá'u'lláh, he moved to Alexandretta (Iskandarun), where he died in 1910.… 'was the recipient of more than 150 Tablets revealed for him by Bahá'u'lláh, and 250 Tablets revealed by 'Abdu'l-Bahá.' Dr. Ekbal believes that '… Muhammad Mustafa was probably the recipient of the highest number of Tablets, both from Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l- Bahá.' (in) Memorials of the Faithful (he was described in glowing terms.)
• Moojan Momen (1982). "The Trial of Mullā 'Alī Basṭāmī: A Combined Sunnī-Shī'ī Fatwā against the Bāb". Journal of the British Institute for Persian Studies. 20: 113–143. JSTOR 4299725. (After the arrest of Mullá `Alí)…Mírzá Mustafá Baghdádí, whose father was a leading Shaikhí of Baghdad at this time, describes what ensued: 'And when the messenger (i.e. Mullá `Alí] came to Baghdad, the governor imprisoned him and placed the books and letter in the council chamber (al-majlis). My father Shaikh Muhammad used to visit the messenger in prison every day and heard the Word of God from him for three months. He used to teach what he heard to the seekers and, in this brief time, many of these people became believers; for example. ..[Mírzá Mustafá here gives a list of names]. And when government saw that the affair was gaining ground day by day, the aforementioned Walí, Najíb Páshá, ordered the ulama from all parts to present themselves in Baghdad.'… (a second account) which make no mention of the Shí`í-Sunní disagreement but deny that Mullá `Alí recanted his belief. The following is the account of the trial in Mírzá Mustafá al-Baghdádí's autobiographical sketch: 'And the messenger [i.e. Mullá `Alí] was summoned to that awesome meeting, and they asked him concerning the author of the cause and he answered, 'The awaited Spirit of Truth has appeared, and he is the one promised in the writings (suhuf) of God and His books.' He recited to them some of the verses and prayers and summoned them to believe. So the cause became of great importance to them, and they arose to denounce it and remonstrated with arrogance. They concurred in pronouncing his unbelief, and decreed the death and annihilation of the messenger.'
• Amanat, Abbas (1981). Early Years of the Babi Movement - background and development (PhD). Oxford University. pp. iv, 212, 216–8, 241–2, 244, 247, 249, 251, 253, 261, 263, 264–5, 268, 432. OCLC 312165527. Baghdadi, Aqa Muhammad Mustafa ibn(son of) Shaykh Muhammad Shibl… Aqa Muhammad Mustafaal-Baghdadi, whose father was a well known mujtahid amongst the Shaykhis, records that before the appearance of the Bab 'all the adherants [i.e. Shaykhis] in Baghdad and its outskirts were mournful at the departure of the late Sayyid, but in the meantime they remained vigilant and watchful for the appearance of the "Promised One" [Zuhur al-Mu'ud] till they came to the honour of his presence.'… Rawlinson, the contemporary British representative in Baghdad who recorded certain details about Mulla Ali's mission, confirms that 'a considerable section of the Sheeahs (Shi'is) of Najaf supported Mulla Ali, while Aqa Muhammad Mustafa Baghdadi mentions various groups of students and adherents who following their mujtahids, were attracted to the new movement. Qatil also confirms the overwhelming support of the Shaykhis prior to the occurrence of the first signs of strong Balasari opposition.… However the majority of those who were regarded as confirmed believers were Shaykhi students or those who previously held some relation with Sayyid Kazim. As far as can be traced, of the total of more than one hundred converts in 'Atabat, nearly half were either Persian or of Persian origin. Of the remaining half more than two-thirds were natives of Iraq who resided in Karbila', Najaf, Baghdad and its neighbourhood. The origin of the remaining one-third is not known.(credited to Baghdadi) The Arab group included some mujtahids of relative importance such as Shaykh Bashir Najafi, a mujtahid of 75 years of age(credited to Baghdadi)… Haji Muhammad Karradi, an aged sarraf who was an officer in the Ottoman army before settling in Baghdad and joining Rashfl's literary circle. He composed qasidihs in praise of Rashti (credited to Baghdadi) … Amongst them … a certain Haji 'Abd al-Muttalib, a resident of Kazimayn, who later in 1264 provided the necessary means for fifty Arab and Persian Babis of Iraq to travel to Iran and participate in the march from Khurasan to Mazandaran, may be mentioned(credited to Baghdadi)… Another Shaykhi dignitary, Shaykh Muhammad Shibl Baghdadi, was also invited presumably to represent the Arab followers of Rashti. But being a believer in the Bab he decided not to participate in the trial. 'He left Baghdad in haste since he reckoned that the vali, intended to obtain approval for the refutation of the cause of God'.(credited to Baghdadi)… Far from the excitement and publicity which surrounded his case, Mulla Ali was spending his third month in the Baghdad gaol. Through some contacts that he managed to establish with the outside, he was still able to transmit his teachings Baghdadi reports; 'My father, Shaykh Muhammad, who visited the "messenger" every day in the gaol, heard from him the "Word of God" [Kalamatallah] for the period of three months. He [i.e. Shaykh Muhammad] then delivered whatever he had heard [from Bastami] to the believers. During this brief period, a great number of people were converted'.… The growing interest shown in the case by the public must, no doubt, have encouraged the vali to set the date for the Baghdad trial. Baghdadi states: 'when the Government saw that the following of the cause [i.e. the Babi movement] is increasing day by day, the valit Najib Pasha ordered the ulama to be present in Baghdad.'… As a result of this objection, Mulla Ali Bastami was closely cross-examined. Nearly all sources agree that his belief in the contents of the new Furqan was scrutinised by the court. But his reply differs from one source to another. Baghdadi states that in reply to the court's question about the identity of Sahib al-Amr, Bastami maintained that; 'He is the righteous expected soul. He appeared and he is the one who was anticipated by the Holy Books'. The author even goes as far as to suggest that Mulla Ali 'glorified the Cause' by reciting some of the verses and prayers of the Bab to the jury and invited them to recognise the Bab's call.… Such sharp contrast between the above sources, prevents a firm conclusion regarding Bastami's response being reached (adding in the footnote:)!! Baghdadi a zelaous Babi perhaps on this occasion only relates the recollections of his father's who in turn was absent from the trial. Further, his sympathy towards Bastami perhaps prevented him or his father from saying something which in their mind could damage the image of Mulla Ali.…(end mention of Baghdadi in the footnote).…
• Amanat, Abbas (1989). Resurrection and Renewal. Ithaca, New York, US: Cornell University Press. pp. xv, 213, 215, 228–9, 232, 234, 300, 307–9, 312, 315, 320, 323, 427. ISBN 0-8014-2098-9.
• Anderson, Eileen Littrell (1992). Qurratu'l-Ayn Tahirih: a study in transformational leadership (PhD). United States International University. pp. 14, 53–4, 115, 139. OCLC 45072741. 304049413.
• Mírzá Habíbu’lláh Afnán’s Khátirát-i-Hayát; translated by Ahang Rabbani (2007). "Memories of My Life Translation of Mírzá Habíbu'lláh Afnán's Khátirát-i-Hayát" (PDF). Online Journal of Bahá‟í Studies. 1. Houston, TX: 350, 365. ISSN 1177-8547.

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. Doing us all a favor and closing this one early. Missvain (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Behrad Shahriari[edit]

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

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This was CSD A7 tagged by User:CommanderWaterford but it has been continually removed by IPs. Shahriari fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article very good references and very number site— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs)
• Keep The article has excellent sources such as Ganja Music and imdb. In my opinion, the article should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alone ghpo (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IMDB; having a page on IMDb is not an indicator of notability. Ganja Music is about as unreliable as it gets. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Source analysis - this entire article is pure spam and there is absolutely nothing about him in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/g/11gy89ns9c&hl=en-IR&q=behrad+shahriari&kgs=80aa42732195894b&shndl=0&source=sh/x/kp&entrypoint=sh/x/kp			This is a Google search not a source	✘ No
https://mehravaz.com/tag/%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C/	?		This is just a link to download one of his songs	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12427668/bio			IMDb is an unacceptable source for a living person	✘ No
https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Behrad-Shahriari/Delbandam/amp			These are just some lyrics, not a reference	✘ No
https://ahangify.com/artists/5b3a2d3fc85f881e175b0645			Self-published Spotify-like page	✘ No
https://aloonak.com/behrad-shahriari-delbandam/			More self-published media	✘ No
https://www.irantunez.com/artist/behrad-shahriari	?		Links to download his MP3s	✘ No
https://www.prince2music.ir/behrad-shahriari-ghabl-az-to/	?		Yet again links to download his MP3s	✘ No
https://nex1music.ir/tag/behrad-shahriari/	?		More spam links	✘ No
https://mrtehran.com/artist/2266			Another music app profile page	✘ No
https://fazmusiciha.com/%D8%A2%D9%87%D9%86%DA%AF-%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86%D9%85/			Another spam MP3 link	✘ No
https://aloonak.com/behrad-shahriari-pashimoonam/			Another self-published site	✘ No
https://www.mybia2music.com/113923339/behrad-shahriari-tanhaye-tanha			Links to download his songs	✘ No
https://www.dalfak.com/w/euh1z/%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B4	?		A video of him singing	✘ No
https://upmusics.com/%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B7%D8%A8-%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%85/			Unreliable source, no significant coverage of him, just a posting of his lyrics	✘ No
https://www.ganja2music.com/771565/behrad-shahriari-eshtebah/		Ganja2music is obviously unreliable	More download links	✘ No
https://www.telewebion.com/episode/1321859			Video uploaded by him or someone connected to him	✘ No
https://www.music-single.com/			More spam links	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

• Keep In my opinion, the article is qualified. Of course, more corrections are needed to make the claims credible, but for now I see no reason to remove them. The article must remain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.212.138.108 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, you are right But instead of deleting the article, please help the article and add it to the source. This is my only request. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk • contribs) 2021-05-09T17:09:37 (UTC)

Second vote by this person; I recommend a canvassing or puppeteering investigation for the "keep" voters thus far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per Spiderone, WP:SPAM, no signs of notability CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Spiderone's source analysis is convincing, and it represents all that can be found with both the Persian and English spellings of the musician's name. The article is clearly an attempted promotion for a musician that has gotten himself into all of his country's typical social media and streaming sites. Those are not reliable sources and only show that he and his music can be found online. Wikipedia articles are supposed to serve a different purpose. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Google search does not turn up any reliable sources that are independent of the subject and talk about the subject in depth. All sources used in the article are self-published and user-generated sites or retailers and fail to establish notability. This is a WP:SPAM page. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't vote on subjects for which references are in a language I neither speak or read. However, I'm troubled that all the keep votes are seemingly the result of canvasing and sock puppetry. Also, Spiderone's source analysis is about as damning as one can get. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current SPI open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliasghar ghorbandokht. Aliasghar ghorbandokht and Alone ghpo have actually already been CU-blocked on Wikimedia but the Wikipedia SPI hasn't been closed yet. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Spiderone's accurate analysis and Doomsdayer. When will the keep voters (I mean voter) learn that download links, mp3 and videos are not reliable sources? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:53, 11 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st Diorama International Film Festival & Market[edit]

1st Diorama International Film Festival & Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about the first annual running of a new film festival, not properly referenced as notable under our inclusion standards for film festivals. As usual, film festivals can certainly have annual splitouts if they can be properly sourced (see: Cannes, Berlin, Toronto), but this is not just automatically extended to every film festival that exists without considering sourceability or lack thereof. But the sourcing here isn't establishing this film festival as noteworthy, consisting entirely of bad sources like the festival's own self-published website, its own self-published press releases, and non-notable and unreliable blogs, with not a hint of any real coverage about the festival in any real media being shown at all. I'm of course willing to withdraw this if somebody with more skill in reading Indian languages like Hindi, Marathi, Bengali or Gujarati than I have can find legitimate sources to repair this with, but it's not entitled to keep an article that's being sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article would have it seem they only held it in 2019 and nothing since, as there are no updates. I googled, it appears they've held one also in 2020 and maybe 2021, but I could only find 3 articles about it. I doubt this is a notable event. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the whole point here is that this article is about the 2019 event itself — coverage of 2020 or 2021 would entail separate articles, not updates to this one. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 12 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 as it passes WP:GNG per consensus. (non-admin closure) Hocus00 (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dubno[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Covered in many reliable websites including [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] and many more. He should pass for WP:GNG. Edamdual (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. It's an obvious keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Edamdual above. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Edamdual. Powerful Karma (talk) 08:53, 15 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. Missvain (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Masood Ahmad[edit]

Dr. Masood Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks reliable sources. Fails WP:NPOL CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete - Hi, I am going to improve the article of Mr. Masood Ahmad. Please don't delete article of Dr. Masood Ahmad. Shabeelko (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is now sufficient evidence of having been elected to the legislature. (It was added after the nomination was made, so it wasn't an unreasonable nomination at the time. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: he is a member of a state legislature, and there are now references. ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as a member of Legislative Assembly. Less Unless (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Crystal-clear WP:NPOL pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:52, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamshid Bayrami[edit]

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

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

This article has existed for many years now, and I came across this article and I was trying to understand more about him . From what I saw this article does not meet WP notability criteria's, for me it should be speedy deleted. Mardetanha (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 15:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 15:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete: The only achievement of the person is taking one photo. Nothing is outstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfan2017 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion I can't find any independent substantial in-depth coverage of this artist that would justify having an article.Valueyou (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG fail.--- Possibly (talk) 17:20, 12 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 Scouts Canada#History. Missvain (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Blain[edit]

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

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

Biography (BLP?) of a former chief executive of the Canadian chapter of an international organization, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for organizational chief executives. Winning the organization's own internal awards for its own internal work is not a notability freebie if your only source is the organization's own self-published content about itself -- the extent to which any award counts as a notability-maker for Wikipedia purposes hinges on the extent to which that award does or doesn't get media coverage to establish its significance, and simply using primary sources to verify the award isn't enough. But there are no other sources being cited here at all, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any independent or reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 15:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Scouts_Canada#History. --evrik ^(talk) 16:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect --hroest 13:22, 14 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) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sirajudheen KP[edit]

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

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

Cannot see how the subject meets WP:FILMMAKER. References do not meet the criteria. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 13:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rich_Smith! Could you check the present version and see if it fits the WP:FILMMAKER criteria? I have tried to show how his second film Vaanku was a notable release by discussing a few of its reviews, and how it received praise for its "bold subject" if you would. Hope to hear soon from you. Cheers! — JosephJames 09:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 13:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 13:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 9 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. Hog Farm _Talk 04:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scrotum Grinder[edit]

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

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

Unnotable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short-lived underground hc punk band with a great name, but I am afraid they are not notable for Wikipedia inclusion. Tagged for sources since 2016. The less-than-stellar sourcing is an unreliable looking site and a site which is unavailable by now. Google search only returned the usual blogs, youtube videos, databases, download links and retail sites. No evidence of notable labels or members. Not notable. COI also applies, as "Masterofpunk25" has only edited this article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not even their media-baiting awesome name got them noticed by reliable music journalists. The nominator is correct -- the band can only be found in the usual retail and streaming services, plus a few unreliable blogs and self-generated sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:25, 10 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 CNN Philippines Newsroom#As a noontime newscast. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newsday (9News)[edit]

Newsday (9News) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability tag since October 2014. Unsourced since October 2012, no attempts in improvement. This short-lived newscast (October 2012–March 2015) may not meet notability guidelines for TV programs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CNN Philippines Newsroom, transferring information as needed to that article's subsection 'Background/As a noontime newscast'. Meticulo (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 2 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 11:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annamalai k[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. - TheWikiholic (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, but the only other attempted claim of preexisting notability here, being state-level vice-president of his political party, is not a notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about his work either. And the only footnote here is covering him in the context of being charged with, but not verifiably convicted of, a crime, which is (a) not grounds for notability either, per WP:PERP, and (b) not enough coverage to get him over GNG all by itself even if it wasn't posing a PERP issue. Bearcat (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yup, as the nom says, fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per nom, fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:36, 13 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 11:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]