Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 10

Guide to deletion

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 procedural close as wrong venue. AfD is only for mainspace articles. Deletion discussions for pages in userspace take place at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. That said, I fail to see a compelling reason to delete what appears to me to be a perfectly good-faith userspace draft. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 16:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

User:TicTawCentral/sandbox/List of Barraclough Series Episodes

TicTawCentral/sandbox/List of Barraclough Series Episodes (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 does not suit Wikipedia's preferences, in that the material does not prove useful. Brothers of Bear (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I find the policy-oriented arguments from the 'delete' side of the conversation significantly more persuasive than the 'keep' arguments. Daniel (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Munawar Faruqui

Munawar Faruqui (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 seems to be a pretty cut and dried case of WP:1E. The reliable sources provided in the article cover the subject specifically in the context of his arrest and I could find no sources outside of those. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep according to Clause #3 of WP:SKCRIT i.e. "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the page in question." Umakant Bhalerao, please explain how this is a " cut and dried case of WP:1E" when the subject was in the news for different incidents in 2020 and 2021. My maths may be weak but it looks to me like 2 Events and not 1, how could you miss that? I suggest you withdraw this erroneous nomination. WP:GNG is easily met due to both national and international media (BBC, Deutsche Welle, Guardian, Independent) covering it. Refs for 2021 incident. Refs for 2020 incident. I started the article. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

References

@Walrus Ji: I've already gone through the references including ones you have posted above and they are all about Munawar Faruqui being booked and detained over cracking Anti-hindi jokes. I literally did not find any sources except these when I did a name search on Google. If you provide any three sources that show he has received in-depth significant coverage prior to this incident, i will be more than happy to withdraw my nomination.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Umakant Bhalerao, How is this a 1 Event case, when I gave reliable source of 2 events separated by year? He is covered in every Indian newspaper (> 40) you can find them just by clicking the links on this AfD page search option. I could also find 4 reputed international news papers listed above. Is this not enough for you? You seem to have some unrealistic standards for GNG that even international coverage seems to be not meeting for you. There seem to be some fundamental issue in the understanding of GNG. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: Ok so what are his accomplishments? Does he have notable performances? Did we know him before or was he ever discussed in the media prior to this incident? He's probably only been in the news because of making derogatory comments against a religion and cracking offensive jokes in videos. I would ask you to let other editors participate in the discussion and put forward their views.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Umakant Bhalerao, He is getting the international coverage for what he did (and did not). People get coverage and hence notability for all kind of reason. Anyway, you still have not answered, why you are continuing to ignore the fact that he was in the news in 2020 as well. Are you saying that those 2020 coverage links don't exist? This nomination, built over 1Event rule, fails there itself. The international coverage, passes GNG. Yes this can go on for a week, but you have an option to withdraw. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: I have seen many articles discussed in international media and they were yet deleted. Being in the news is not enough and we also need to see why the subject is being in the news. I don't see any notable works by him, neither was he discussed in the media due to his performances before. All i see is he got booked and detained over making offensive statements about a religion and its very common for media to report such things, especially in India. I think i have made clear why i believe this article does not meet the notability requirements for a biography. the final decision now rests with the admin.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Walrus Ji has been indef blocked by arbcom. Reasons not disclosed. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per NOTNEWS - absolutely no coverage whatsoever in reliable source independent of the incident for which he has been in news. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep An important indicator of the deterioration of freedom of speech. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, Have a look at this https://m.freepressjournal.in/article/viral/why-is-arrestmunawarfaruqui-trending-on-twitter/50e8ebb1-4501-43fd-8036-ef794710ad30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainabfarooquiii (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• delete the subject doest pass notability criteria for stand up comedians, nor general notability criteria, nor WP:ANYBIO. To establish notability, we need sustained in-depth coverage, the subject doesnt have it. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep, Munawar is also an Indian Youtuber with 560k subscribers and with millions of views on his videos.

youtu.be/BOxmYq1zuzk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainabfarooquiii (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

struck out repeat vote. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, passes WP:BASIC, primarily due to two separate events so WP:BLP2E would apply here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

in my opinion, the subject fails BASIC as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable comedian, lacking any significance outside a single event. Shrikanthv (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, Its not one single event there are two of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.236.189.197 (talk) 18:17, February 4, 2021 (UTC)

This IP has no contributions outside this subject. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, The topic isn't notable at all, the topic is trending for very little time and after some time it will again be non-notable. Okden Nash l9 (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete wp:event, wp:notnews Only one trick... Yogesh Khandke (talk)

• Delete per WP:1E. The above WP:ILIKEIT comments are unhelpful and far from proving the subject to be notable. Tessaracter (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep It's another article in the series of freedom of speech violations of artists, ( in other news : journalists, protesters, farmers) by the ruling government and supporter mobs. As BBC also noted in an article:

His arrest is being seen as the latest assault on freedom of speech in India, encouraged by vigilante activism by Hindu mobs and exacerbated by trolling by online armies on social media. Last year, at least half-a-dozen comics apologised for hurting religious sentiments.

.AdithyaKL (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• Delete – it seems most of the "Keep" votes have to do with freedom of speech, but that's a separate issue than whether this particular person is notable – is there an article on the freedom of speech issue that Munawar Faruqui could be redirected to? – Epinoia (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Jack-in-USA (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Above "keep" !votes, mostly by SPAs don't really indicate any evidence of notability. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment It appears that Shashank5988 is casting WP:ASPERSION on editors he does not agree with stating Above "keep" !votes, mostly by SPAs. Vikram Vincent 08:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep The subject has received wide and enough coverage, and I guess it is enough for him to merit an article. Nonetheless, it appears to me recentism, and I would thus favor slow keep over deletion but I'm fine if it is deleted as well. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep (Also see my previous comment) It seems pressing to have an article with a neutral point of view and reliable sources in a politically and communally sensitive case. I'm not too familiar with all WP policies yet, so I don't know if something related to this exists. AdithyaKL (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Struck out - Duplicate Vote.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Umakant Bhalerao: I thought relisting allows presenting new arguments. Can I move my above comment down here, to keep one vote?

• Delete: As per WP:NOT, Subject is only notable for a single event Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

2010–11 US Créteil-Lusitanos season

2010–11 US Créteil-Lusitanos season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is a general consensus that clubs playing below professional level don't generally qualify for stand-alone season articles as they don't tend to meet WP:GNG. This does not meet the presumed notability given by WP:NSEASONS since they were not playing in a top professional league this season. Créteil-Lusitanos is not a massive club (they have spent most of their life playing below professional level) and doesn't tend to get enough non-routine coverage for these articles to be necessary. Aside from that, there doesn't appear to be anything particularly remarkable about this season that would allow it to be an exception to the general rule. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 11:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Too low a level to warrant such detail. Nigej (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oliver Morgan

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

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:NSINGER. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep - He has an AllMusic bio and review, an AP obit, and possibly some New Orleans obits. Covered in Up From the Cradle of Jazz. Mentions in Billboard and books on Jazz Fest/New Orleans. Perhaps a case where many smaller mentions add up... Caro7200 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment He purportedly had a national hit (Who Shot the La La) in 1964, which is referenced in the numerous tangential mentions/obits to be found. If we can find reliable charts to back it up it should be a natural keep. Otherwise, probably not. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep I added refs. The hit single was released in 1963; we are unlikely to find chart numbers via Google, but they can likely be found via Newsbank or an archival source. Allmusic refers to him as a "New Orleans institution and "genre-defining" in his biography. In addition to an AP obit, his death was covered by the major dailies, weeklies, and monthlies in New Orleans and Baton Rouge; that would not be the case if he were not notable. (The obits are exclusively about Oliver, FWIW.) JSFarman (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy delete The article is a straight up copyright violation. (https://www.facebook.com/honoringlegends/posts/10160322210705483?comment_id=10160322997245483) Tagged. JSFarman (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Look at the dates of the Facebook post and the creation of the Wikipedia article. In which direction do they show the copying to have been? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, the Facebook post copied from the Wikipedia page. Every edit from after 6 May 2018 (the date of the post) is just general cleanup edits. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 10:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Wow. Of course. Apologies all around. I assumed that the Facebook post was based on content pulled from The National R&B Society but I should have checked - the National R&B Society is not exactly a thriving organization of musicologists or a hotbed of expertise. (Their website is here: here . JSFarman (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as AllMusic, New Orleans regional news coverage and jazz music sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep following the improvements by JSFarman, enough coverage to meet WP:SINGER.-KH-1 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 14:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Mary Ann Mansigh

Mary Ann Mansigh (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 declined at AFC and creator of the page has continued to move war and edit war. In any case the subject of the fails to satisfy WP:BIO as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search doesn’t turn up anything substantial. AFD'ing this page is just the last resort Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't contribute to the discourse

Comment I'm confident that people will see reason. This stuff is verified. Ema--or (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Comment/question Oooh what's wrong with the comment bots? are they workin'?Ema--or (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Fixed, ha. Too slow, too slow/. Comment First time for everything!! afD after how many years..... :) Ha Ema--or (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Comment Much. Ado. about nil. Smh/ Ema--or (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC) -- RE - Kbabej 00:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Good comments, though I don't agree. Made in good faith and some interesting observations. Ema--or (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Comment Now that I think, it isn't my first brush with wiki deletionists. Bessel, who's that guy, yeah. Simon problems. deustche wiki even beat us to that one. Hmm wonder why (diplo speak for why the hell). Ema--or (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Ps This is meant to be serious debate, but irony and satire that lang. is spoken here, (a)plenty. 00:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Ema--or (talk) Request Hi, Celestina, please alert physics about this. This debate's net should be cast as wiiiide as possible. Ema--or (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Comment Hmmm. It's like you really want me to try knock this outta tha park, and I'm not even a baseball/cricket person. Let's go. Ema--or (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC) I hope it doesn’t seem that I’m trying to monopolise the discussion. Well, it’s my right to have as much say as I want or need to. If it means being convincing. You can call it passion, if you like. Ema--or (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC) “Comment” I'm invoking/evoking(?) the spirit of all those female computing pioneers. Let’s do it for them. Ema--or (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Edit - I’m going to call some names, to show the exalted company this woman should be in. She cocreated molecular dynamics for goodness sakes. Ema--or (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Who are these people whose names I’m calling on? 03:22 Utc, 11 February 2021. These folks; in the names of . (Edit - Didn't finish this. See here for explanation.. Ema--or (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)) Comment This subject has been a long time in the works, having waited years for its place in the sun (even enduring deletion), but its time has come. 02:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Ps I remember a few years ago there was a story about an artist by a prolific wiki creator that was nearly deleted. This made the news everywhere as sign of wiki’s macho bias. Do you really want to be those folks. Do you want to be spoken about in the same way? I don’t have an email with this account. Imagine people possibly having to contact me through the site. Do you want that? Do you ?Ema--or (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC). Boom! Found it. See also this, and this here. Ema--or (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Comment An interesting story. Back in 2013, I attended a chemistry talk between Daan Frenkel and a colleague. Both being Dutch (I love Dutchies! Is that offensive? Love the country, and am learning the lingo. Let me know... we're living in a pc world, and not after just the merger with currys) and chemists, the interview took a turn when Frenkel was asked who his history teacher was. xx But I digress.... It was through Frenkel and this talk that I found out about Ms Mansigh, and it struck me I’d discovered another so called computer girl/code girl. It turns out that this guy seems to be a big fan, and in some of his other work he, Frenkel, has mentioned her. I hope this adds some colour. Ema--or (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Is the story true or bs - you decide. xx It was Fortuyn! Comment — Please do not BLUDGEON the AFD process & furthermore, you can’t hold Wikipedia to ransom via threats, thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Ah, thanks for pointing this out, and making me aware - wasn't. I consider myself yellow-carded! But, I can only but try to be passionate and persuasive, no crime here. Everyone still has their space, and I don't want take away anyone's voice, if anything lightly engage them, but maybe that won't change hearts or minds. I'm also not threatening anyone... at least hope not. And if I still get in trouble, the hope's it's Lewis's good trouble! Woah, is this how people get banned.... See ya. Ema--or (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Given the above, I decided to pursue a different tack. For those of you still interested in my self-important bloviations, flatulencies and verbal diarrheas, please see the subject's talk page for a blow-by-blow commentary at a ringside seat to this palaver. Alright, wiederseh'n/tot siensEma--or (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)! After having had a (possibly somewhat short) cool-off in this place - let calm heads reign etc, I think some important stuff has to be said before getting things too far along. Rather than approach people individually I have decided (spellchk deiced? hmm) to do it in the open (as if anything on wp is really secret, huhuh), rather be accused of sth else again. While I am focused on this discussion and this article (as this's the time to, not after), I will defend myself in an appropriate forum when all this is over. Expect no less... Ema--or (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC) - I’ve put all possibly interested parties on notice, including additionally wp project biog. Going on the record to say that my requests for further clarification have not yet been acknowledged. Maybe I/ my questions were ignored or refused an answer. Let it be known, hear ye, hear ye, oyiez (oyez/oye?). And now we wait... Ema--or (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Ema--or, Please STOP your disruptive behavior. Suggestion: channel your energy into improving the article, that action would be more helpful to the purpose of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Eyyy (scream & recoil)! Oh deary. What did I now do? Please feel free to answer me anyhow, and anywhere. Ema--or (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Re "Reply, Ema--or 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)" If your notices are anything other than squeeky clean 100% neutral, you will have your edit privleges revoked for repeated disruption. Consider this a formal administrative warning, User:Ema--or. DMacks (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Ooohh brr thin ice here. one wrong step a plunge and sploosh!... cold [wet] surprise (at very least, if not more worries for such scenario). (negotiation) What about squeeky[sic] clean 98.8999x% neutral where for 3<x<7, we move to 99.999912345..% maybe we ask Cantor. While some may (now say, who would that be? - no names please, seriously,) want me banned (see my joke, is this how people get banned, not really being a joke anymore hahaha), fortunately, thankfully, I have been given the most gracious guidance. I say and I quote- To maintain neutrality, you must notify every project that follows the article and none that don't. Seems fair for the both of the above, whaddya/whatcha say? Toodle-doo! Ema--or (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC) ps You know that person who flips out and gets banned..... well that's not me!.. One thing, yet. The persistent e/inquisitor (e/inquirer?, I'm not a gossip magazine or an investigative torturer, am I? Or am I (not)?) wants to push this ever even more. I must ask the ff - please/pray do tell if verifiable facts are allowed in such announcements (eg professional info/data, institutional affiliation). Tar-ra-ra. xx (blown from a &safe& social distance) Ema--or (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Seems I’ve been ignored. Ema--or (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Still waiting.... would be nice. More than 24 hrs. Ema--or (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Too late. Ema--or (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Re -DreamLinker 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Reply When I saw this yesterday, during my self-imposed cooldown period, though (in which I stayed away from here, however briefly) I thought - now here's an idea - I was willing to agree as a compromise to move it back to draftspace, even though it will've had (a) reduced stay, just for goodwill - even as I suspect it won't save me from reprimand, or possibly discipline. But, it is now too far progressed for there. As a further gesture of good faith, and to kill two birds with one stone (weapon strike? killing birds pc?) why don't we now focus on Wainwright, he's the last of the four without an article (however you want article request/requested articles, draft etc). Alright I'm off. Enjoy your saturday afternoon/evening. Tootlie-too... Ema--or (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Sources do not currently indicate notability- if there are more / better sources out there- please add them. I do think she could be mentioned in another article for her contributions. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I couldn't find much in the way of RS, and I researched this thoroughly, thinking I might be able to rescue it. The Independent states she is "a woman pioneer in the field of computer programming, breaking through gender barriers and supporting the physics research done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) over a forty year career" here; and NanoTRANS called her a "pioneer of Molecular Dynamics Simulations" here. The Independent might work, but even calls itself "local coverage", and I've never heard of NanoTRANS before so have no idea on its sourcing. The entry in NanoTRANS doesn't even have a byline. There's also an article that appears on a number of sites called "Almost famous a woman behind the codes" (available here) that calls her "a truly outstanding representative of the first generation of coders", but there's no byline and I don't know where it originated. The specific wording shows up on a number of sites, so they're just copying each other. Do three short sources (two without bylines or attribution) GNG make? I'm leaning toward delete. Feel free to ping me if someone's able to find something better or make a swaying Keep !vote. --Kbabej (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Nominator claims to have done a WP:BEFORE search, but in addition to the above sources, the first page of Google Books turns up coverage in a Springer publication: (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Computer_Meets_Theoretical_Physics/VCbsDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22mary+ann+mansigh%22&pg=PA45&printsec=frontcover). Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete – I do not see how the sources (including the one mentioned by Gnomingstuff) constitutes significant coverage. Kbabej's analysis is spot on. It is unfortunate that the article was not allowed to remain a draft, but now it has to meet the applicable notability criteria, and neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF is met. She seems to have been a thoroughly competent programmer, but that is not grounds for notability. --bonadea contributions talk 16:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Following on from my posts above in the spirit of compromise (as this's when I can afford it), I've decided - barring any objections - to de-clog/de-clutter/un-clog/un-clutter(??? yeh, yeh, whatever) the discussion, and move some of my messages to this chat site's talk page. over n out... Ema--or (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of science deletion discussions. Ema--or (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep if EPFL considers her a pioneer, and has conferences held in her honor, she's notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify Keep per WP:HEY due to the research and work by Britishfinance. - The article has some potential, and there is indication that she might be notable, but it was moved irregularly into live article space much too soon. The disruptive editing during the creation process, and in this AfD is problematic. I suggest sending it back to draft space to incubate, and allow other editors who are interested in women in science to help develop it. Netherzone (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The very-non-neutrally-worded project notification by Ema--or at Special:Diff/1006287654 looks like a serious WP:CANVASS violation to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly agreed. DMacks (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree, multiple WikiProjects were canvassed. Netherzone (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    • The AFD was already put in those Wikiprojects' deletion sorting lists so it probably didn't make any difference. Dream Focus 18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reply Well, well, well, what would you know. In that case then ... Be advised, be advised - I intend to add Wps History of science and Computing as well. Ema--or (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC) ed Still awaiting further clarification, so haven't sent the alerts. Please hold hold off declaring consensus until after they have been notified. I'll inform the discussion when the posts've been made. Ema--or (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Done. Ema--or (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify I'm inclined to believe that the person is notable, but given the problematic nature of the editing, etc. I agree with Netherzone that it probably needs a bit of time to incubate. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep due to recent improvements to the article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per Headbomb. She might be "almost famous", but fame≠notability. If she was one of the two to three people known for inventing the whole field of molecular dynamics, that's a pretty big deal. DMacks (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep She was significant in her field. https://www.independentnews.com/community/aauw-presents-tales-of-a-computer-pioneer/article_febbadb4-a6c2-11e6-b9f6-f7ce486823ea.html She was thanked at https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6248020 "I am particularly grateful to Mary Ann Mansigh for programming the many and varied molecular-dynamics problems for the computer." Her peers respect her contributions to a new field of science. Dream Focus 18:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree with the comment above about the book found by Gnomingstuff. It contains over a page of coverage which is perfectly enough for an encyclopedia article. My worry is that I can't find any other equivalent source. And, of course, the canvassing that has happened can only serve to make it more difficult to evaluate this subject properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify per Netherzone above, but also because this article is a draft that was declined at AFC. The normal procedure for a declined draft is to remain a draft and eventually be re-submitted to AFC once it's deemed ready. The fact that the draft's creator decided to ignore the AFC procedure and move it to articlespace prematurely doesn't change any of that, so it should go back to draftspace where it belongs. Lennart97 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• It took me 10 minutes to find that previously-declined form due to so much page-move/hist-merge and multiple creations. I assume it's User:Ema--or/Mary_Ann_Mansigh? That's not a valid article. The nominated page instead makes multiple specific claims of notability, some with cites, and here in AFDAFC more have been identified. If it makes someone feel better to move this to AFD, re-add the tags, then accept it (if that's what this AFD concludes), then that's fine I guess. But neither Netherzone nor Lennart97 seem to have identified any specific reason to reject it in its current form beyond process-circumvention. I agree that the creator should be admonished for so much disruption of process, but fact is here we are, and AFD itself seems to have led to improvement of the article. DMacks (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed TLA. DMacks (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep (changed from Draftify, above). Dmacks is correct: this current, vastly improved version is ready for article space, and how it got there doesn't matter. I let my annoyance with the creator's disruptive behaviour cloud my judgement on this one. Thanks for pointing this out, DMacks. Lennart97 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep (as article has been sufficiently improved).--DreamLinker (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Draftify for now and let this article be improved, without the AfD deadline. Personally, I believe this is a notable person (although I don't really have enough sources to back it up right now). Considering that computer programming was a niche field in the 1950s/60s, it is highly probably that a programmer from that era is notable. As Mary Ann Mansigh was a programmer instead of an academic researcher, the lack of papers authored is understandable. In the "acknowledgment" section of some papers dating back to the 60s and 70s, I did find her name mentioned. There are also brief mentions in a few recent papers [1],[2],[3]. My library subscription has expired so I am not able to search older news/databases. It is unfortunate though, that the article was moved to mainspace sidestepping AFC and I would recommend the author to trust the process and collaborate. Many of us are willing to help and improve articles, but as we are volunteers, we might not be able to immediately improve it. AFC allows us to collaborate without a strict deadline.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. It is clear that she is a borderline case so I don't think drafting this will change this. The crux is that Mary has become notable due to the fact that she was one of the very few female computer scientists working at that time (several of the academic papers quoted in the article name check her in this regard, such as ".. more “he” than “she” in the 50’s and 60’s — Arianna Rosenbluth and Mary-Ann Mansigh are notable exceptions.." (we have a Arianna W. Rosenbluth article). This status is sufficient for several notable academic institutions (quoted in the article and ELs), to name lecture series after her. I think this meets WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. Preserving such fragments of a female pioneer are useful encyclopedic activities. Britishfinance (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• This interview for the EPFL is WP:SIGCOV (and contains useful biographical details), Mary Ann Mansigh Karlsen, codeuse de la première heure. Britishfinance (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Also, very poignant ref [12] (last ref) in this tidied up an article of an academic noting that her name should have appeared as an author on the published academic papers written as a result of her molecular dynamics computer code - again, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER, these were different times for women. Britishfinance (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep following WP:HEY by Britishfinance. The Springer volume is definitely significant coverage, and I think the other sources there are now enough to support. I also agree that there's a possible WP:NPROF C1 case, per her (under-acknowledged) contribution to impactful scientific work. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm convinced by the arguments above and the sources now cited in the article. Particularly convincing is that the modern equivalent would undoubtably be credited as a co-author of many papers. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• I must say a word about draftification. There is nothing "irregular" about an article creator moving an article to mainspace. Creating an article in mainspace is the regular Wikipedia process, and going through AfC is completely optional for anyone with the technical capability of bypassing AfC. If anyone chooses not to use AfC then an article should stand or fall by an AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am the editor who used the word "irregular". That comment was based on my reading of the article history. Netherzone (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment re: my mention of the Springer book -- My mentioning it is more of a quality-of-coverage argument, as opposed to quantity; for instance, the beginning of the section calls her "perhaps the greatest collaborator of Alder and Wainwright," which seems like a clear statement of significance by the author. But quantity does enter into it as well; several pages dedicated to one person, including biographical details, in a book more broadly about the history of molecular physics is a non-trivial amount of space. (I didn't come here from any kind of canvassing operation.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Headbomb (and Gnomingstuff above, and other comments..). Getting a lecture series in your honor seems enough to be considered notable. It might be bad form for me to say this, but it seems WP has plenty of bios of less notable programmers, "famous" for writing blogs and posting youtube videos, rather than actually achieving anything. Let's honor historic importance; the importance of developing an entire field seems indisputable. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Per WP:HEY and reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:BIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Soaking music

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

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

I can't find any sources for this music style, aside from self-published promotional material. Of the four sources given, one is promoting a musician, one is dead, and the other are not actually about soaking music, but soaking prayer. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Largely unsourced and/or no-reliable sources found Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with the nominator. I really don't think there's even enough for a merge to be justified so would be in favour of outright deletion unless some sources come forward to suggest that this is actually a notable genre and not just something that a small group of people made up one day. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Mark Cannons

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

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete No indication of notability. scope_creep^Talk 17:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable in the broader context; would probably only be deemed worthy of a very brief stub even on a cricket Fandom site. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. An article with no source with significant coverage. Fails in WP: GNG.✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, those involving minor counties do not meet this standard. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and the usual wide-ranging databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Wiltshire County Cricket Club List A players. Daniel (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

David Pike

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

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - the extra info added by a random IP address is very strange.... I suppose that is what happens when people other than me edit articles... Bobo. 21:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of notability. Completely unsourced BLP. scope_creep^Talk 17:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Removed the personal details but still wholly non-notable for a general encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded individual matches, playing for one of the minor counties does not meet this standard. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and the usual wide-ranging databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a total and complete failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Wiltshire County Cricket Club List A players - no actual notability outside the one List A appearance Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul Goodman (cricketer)

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

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not notable.Nightenbelle (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. An utterly and completely non-notable subject; his List A appearance wasn't even against a first-class county. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, minor counties cricket does not meet this standard; in addition Goodman's solitary LA match was between two minor counties. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Andrew White (English cricketer)

Andrew White (English cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete another in a very long line of cricket players who fail GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above and per my reasoning on the similar non-notable cricketers currently up for deletion. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, those involving minor counties do not meet this standard. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions – as Andy – in local routine cricket reports, and the usual wide-ranging databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

John Love (cricketer)

John Love (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see how inclusion in one archive merits a WP. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Another completely non-notable subject. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, minor counties cricket does not meet this standard, and Love's solitary LA match was between two minor counties. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Deepak Banker

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

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG Padavalam🌂  ►  16:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete another in a super long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Chandulal Banker

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

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing significant for him, fails GNG.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete another in a long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan Norris

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

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. A wholly non-notable figure; once again his only List A match was not even against a first-class county. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, minor counties cricket does not meet this standard. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in match reports, and databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - As noted above, he clearly did not play at a high enough level to meet notability threshold for an article. Dunarc (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Gary Bailey (cricketer)

Gary Bailey (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - given the large amount of information of information about leagues such as the East Anglian Premier League and others on CA, I wonder if further information can be found in locally-based print sources of the era... Bobo. 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of being notable. Profile article. scope_creep^Talk 17:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a fact that in many cases there is a black hole for online researching (largely the only sort possible in present circumstances) from local press, after the BNA record of most such papers runs out and before archives of internet-era articles (as can be found on Infotrac Newsbank) begin. The BNA does need more coverage of contemporary history. But even if that weren't the case, I doubt whether the subject of this article would be notable: the coverage almost certainly would be WP:MILL. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, minor counties cricket does not meet this standard. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Mark Tipping

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

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. I have removed the "citation needed" comment, but that doesn't make him any more notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, minor counties cricket does not meet this standard. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Robert Austin (Norfolk cricketer)

Robert Austin (Norfolk cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. So non-notable that the team against which he played his sole List A match doesn't even have an article. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, minor counties cricket does not meet this standard. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

John Stuck

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

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

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Would be deemed worthy only of a stub on a cricket Fandom site, and fails all our guidelines completely. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Fails NCRIC, but passes GNG. Would appear to be a lower-level cricketer of some note; many sources available, including an article in Wisden Cricket Monthly [4]. Article expanded. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - GNG now demonstrated, nice WP:HEY Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Keiser Corporation

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

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

Possible covert UPE of a non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search coupled with the sources used in the article all point to primary sources or sponsored posts thus unreliable Celestina007 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, unreliable sources, very few sources, period, does not belong on Wikipedia. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

2021–22 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final

2021–22 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Shell/template article about a future event. WP:CRYSTALBALL, completely unreferenced, and without content. Maybe, later in the year, ... Mikeblas (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete The article is empty. Also, per WP:NOTNP (by analogy), Wikipedia is not a sports calendar, sports magazine or similar journalistic outlet informing the public of upcoming sports events. The preparation of the event would need to have become notable by now for the event to warrant an early article, but it isn't. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify. Clearly this is a good-faith effort and a work in progress, but not of much use to the WP:READER yet. Note also that the article is barely 3 days old. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 09:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but I can't even find a reference that says the 2021 event is scheduled. Thus, we can't even support a stub that says "planned for Osaka in December 2021". -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

John Evans (writer)

John Evans (writer) (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 whole article seems pretty WP:PEACOCK-y. According to Henrietta Lucks it isn't even accurate with regards to basic facts like the subject's birth year.

I have significant doubts about whether this meets WP:NAUTHOR. The article is almost entirely cited by primary sources. In my WP:BEFORE, I found this article (which calls him an "acclaimed writer").

For his works:

• How Real Is My Valley? - cited once in passing here.
• Red Kite in Wales - no citations or reviews found.
• The Acid Real - A BBC blog post and this in depth walesonline article.
• Industria - not even an Amazon customer review.
• Goshawk same story there, but the film did get this WalesOnline coverage.

As to the reliability of WalesOnline, please refer to this RS/N discussion. It seems the consensus is that is reliable for regional coverage, but I am not sure that can pass the bar for establishing notability (especially considering WP:SPIP).

Overall, my position is that we should either delete for WP:TNT reasons if people think that the WalesOnline establishes general notability (I don't), or if you hold my opinion that it doesn't then we should delete because the subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. I too was thinking about AfD or PRODding it but there is a claim to notability, winning the Whitbread Award award (now Costa Book Awards), which is notable. I am unable to reference that however. But, the claims of inaccuracy and obvious self-promotion, lends my support to delete at least under WP:TNT. Ifnord (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a bunch of fluffiness without adequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The full list of all past recipients of the Whitbread Awards can be found here. Evans' name is not amongst them. I can't say whether it's an entirely false claim, or whether it's a reference to some other award that was associated with the Whitbread brand, but it's clear he was not the recipient of one of these awards which would probably have been the strongest claim to notability. I've spent some time searching for sources, which has been difficult because the subject's name is quite a common one, which he shares with various different musicians and authors. The best I can come up with are a couple of short puffy WP:INTERVIEWs on Wales Online, and this short and less-than-glowing review of one of his books. I don't see a WP:GNG pass, or an WP:NAUTHOR pass, based on what I can find. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  A couple of further thoughts. All of his books except for the Red Kite one are published by Underground Press which is (or was) operated by the subject - they're self-published. However: his personal website no longer seems to be functional, but the archived version references a number of substantial pieces about him - much of it in local press, but some of it in publications such as Time Out and Shortlist. I can't find any of them online, and don't know exact dates so they're not usable as refs, but assuming they're not outright fakes there's probably enough out there. I feel obliged to strike my delete !vote, as I think it likely that the subject is probably notable per GNG, but a lot of digging through print sources of the 90s/early 2000s would be needed to create a properly referenced article. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Danielle Gamba

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

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

PROD'd back in 2009, article is practically the same. A BEFORE turned up no evidence that would satisfy GNG or ANYBIO. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete cheerleaders for professional sports teams are not default notable, and nothing else comes even close to notability. Wait, we deleted articles back in 2009? I thought that did not start until 2010 based on how much druk we have sitting around from before that year. OK, I really knew we deleted articles before 2010, I am just mocking how extremely rare it was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - unable to find any significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete There is more about FHM discontinuing their print publications than about the individual who is the topic of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 13:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Only tenuous claim to notability (FHM gig) is not cited. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No GNG claim. Kolma8 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, G11, G12 by Deb TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Rakib Khan Akas

Rakib Khan Akas (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 and sources provided do not establish notability of this filmmaker per WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. ... discospinster _talk 18:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete wholly promotional and copyright violation. RationalPuff (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Reena Wadia

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

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

Vanity and promotional article. Full of puffery, run-of-the-mill stuff. Do not pass WP:BASIC,WP:ANYBIO, WP:RS RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I agree that it's promo, and should be deleted. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep While the article needs clean up, multiple independent and reliable sources in the article and elsewhere (e.g. Telegraph, HuffPost) quote Wadia as an expert, so WP:BASIC notability appears to be established. Beccaynr (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. The Telegraph and HuffPost articles aren't even about her; they are about gum health and ask her questions about gums. They aren't focusing on the subject's contribution to her profession, or an award she's won, or any type of analysis. This is basically a CV. --Kbabej (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Puff-piece at the best of times. Please delete. Not notable Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Just puff. She seems to have got a grand total of 2 citations to her published work. For the field she works in 2000 would be closer to the norm. If the BLP is kept the title Dr should be removed as it is not used by Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC).
• Delete. It's actually impressive how few citations she has and how low her h-index is for how many papers she's published (the bulk seem to be either uncited monographs or from a series in British Dental Journal called "Periodontal diagnosis in the context of the BSP implementation plan for the [year] classification system of periodontal diseases and conditions: [case report]". Xxanthippe is correct -- per Scopus, the average citation number for her coauthors with more than 10 papers to their name is 2711 (median: 1212, Wadia: 88). Her coauthors manage this with way fewer papers, too: avg: 79, median: 66, Wadia: 112. Her h-index is over 5 times lower than the average (avg: 23, median: 17, Wadia: 4)! JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 13:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No GNG claim. Kolma8 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as others have also said. If kept though, article needs renaming too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree with above. There is no sign of her meeting any notability criteria. Dunarc (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Zdravko Dizdar

Zdravko Dizdar (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:NACADEMIC WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• I happened to notice this AfD just as I added a reference to a journal article written by this person to an English Wikipedia article. D'oh! :) https://www.bib.irb.hr/pregled/znanstvenici/20735 shows 112 entries: 50 journal articles, 18 articles in convention proceedings, 14 summaries from conventions, 10 other papers, and 9 book chapters. https://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+Zdravko+Dizdar seems to indicate over a hundred references. The article lists an award, hr:Nagrada Ljubica Štefan, which seems a bit recent and isn't particularly well known in Croatia, though. However, a generic search finds me a fair bit of general notability, with some coverage in Jutarnji list [5], BBC Croatian [6], Index.hr [7], etc. He appears to be generally recognized as a relevant historian in Croatia, and if we can have an article on Barbara Radulović, we can keep this, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. WorldCat[8] seems to suggest he has ten different books, several of which have gone through multiple editions (up to 11). Tends to suggest successful reviewed books, just hard for English speakers to find the reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Joy; a historian with a sizable body of work and overall coverage that passes the WP:GNG threshold. I've also found a journal review of one of his books. On a side note: WP:NACADEMIC, interpreted strictly, is a ridiculously high hurdle compared to e.g. WP:NFOOTY. The notion that a country like e.g. Croatia has 10x more notable footballers than notable academics leads to reductio ad absurdum, therefore the degree of scrutiny (such as what counts as "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed") should be adjusted accordingly. GregorB (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this music venue does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Little Darlin's Rock n’ Roll Palace

Little Darlin's Rock n’ Roll Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Checking both newspaper archives and books, I see no indication that this place is anything more than a local spot with minor local coverage. There is nothing really in depth. CUPIDICAE💕 16:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete — non notable location with barely any RS. I fail to see WP:NGEO being satisfied here. Celestina007 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Praxidicae beat me to it by nominating this article. Minor local coverage does not meet GNG. —Kbabej (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion. A non notable location? Have you seen the amount of acts that played there? It was intrinsic to the revival of 50's and 60's music. There are plenty of linked articles to it. Minor local coverage is not an accurate way of describing it - it was shown on a few mainstream stations in the US and it's shows are available on DVD.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If we had an article on everywhere a notable person went, this wouldn't be an encyclopedia, it would be a fan site. There is zero in depth coverage of the venue. CUPIDICAE💕 18:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to the Old Town amusement park article, not notable enough by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi CUPIDICAE💕, no offence, but I don't know what to make about your replies. Writing things like 'There is zero in depth coverage of the venue' is simply not true and a crass generalisation. It adds nothing when there is a series of televised shows providing in depth coverage as well as numerous articles proving it was a notable place. A merge at the very least would be an idea, however I think the venue deserves it's own page and I have added more sources to the article. Thank you.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Glaaaastonbury88 You're free to feel however you want but it's neither crass nor a generalization to say that there is no in-depth coverage of the venue. There isn't. I'm obviously open to being proven wrong but that requires you to provide independent reliable sources (not fan blogs, nostalgia sites or "look who played here in 19xx!" fan-cruft. CUPIDICAE💕 16:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, none of the added "sources" meet reliable sourcing guidelines to indicate significant, in depth coverage. I have no doubt that Glaaaastonbury88 is editing in good faith, however I recommend a review of reliable sources to learn about which help with notability, and which don't. StarM 17:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Well looks like I am fighting another losing battle here.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Still Oppose deletion- Ok, last try. I have reviewed the page, surely the sheer volume of artists that have played there that have televised or recorded performances to prove it and the 14 references provided are enough to establish notability? ThanksGlaaaastonbury88 (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Glaaaastonbury88 you only get one !vote, but you're welcome to comment. And no, being associated with notable subjects does not equate to notability. Please read WP:INHERITED CUPIDICAE💕 18:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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 Transportation of the President of the United States. Closing this early as the last AfD was closed only a couple of weeks ago. Clear consensus here and there that this shouldn't exist. I'm not going to full-protect just yet, but if anyone sees it be recreated in this or similar form, ping me and I will deal with more strongly. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Space Force One

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Space Force One
• Articles for deletion/Space Force One (2nd nomination)

Space Force One (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-existing call sign (it has never been used), no mention in reliable sources. Clear case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. The article was already deleted once when the article was in more or less the same state. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Force One lovkal (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I might add that I support redirecting Space Force One to Transportation of the President of the United States. lovkal (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - there was very clear consensus that this isn't notable at the AfD last month. Has anything changed since then? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find a single mention of "Space Force One" in the context of a military call-sign on Google. The previous article on Space Force One relied on an FCC order that stipulates that any military aircraft carrying POTUS is assigned the call sign <military branch> followed by One, but the order never explicitly mentions Space Force One. lovkal (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Correction - I meant FAA, not FCC. 46.162.75.56 (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC) lovkal (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete absolutely nothing has changed since the last time we deleted this druk.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Transportation of the President of the United States again. Clear consensus in the previous AfD on this and it doesn't look like anything has changed. Also please consider protecting the article to stop this AfD from needing to be repeated ad nauseam Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing has changed since the AFD a month ago, which was a pretty unanimous call for deletion. Restoring the Redirect would be fine as well, but seeing as there are zero sources actually mentioning or discussing the topic, I would think it would currently be more appropriate to remove the reference to the term from the Transportation of the president of the United States article and deleting this one. Regardless, though, this should not remain as an independent article and should be protected to keep it from being restored again. Rorshacma (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails GNG, no justification for it being recreated after earlier AFD. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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) ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 02:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

1C:Enterprise

1C:Enterprise (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 questionable. Citations currently used seem to focus more on the company itself, or are just posts on Medium and similar pages. This is probably the best around, but I'm still not sure. User has made no other edits other than to this page. Page was previously a redirect. talk to !dave 13:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would keep the article. We have lots of secondary sources on other wiki-languages as well. For example, [9], [10], [11], [12], etc. 1C:Enterprise has quite wide coverage which, I think, is not preferable to put it to 1C Company and redirect again to there. The best option is to split sections. Also, editor's contribution history is not an issue for Wikipedia's policies. Past editors always come and go, like me. Best regards, Leanko (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge into parent company - whether or not people believe this deserves an article, there is some useful information here. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Maybe the sources are not properly used, however, I see Google gives 12 500 000 results for 1C:Enterprise and Google Scholar 2 130 results. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Remember that Google results don’t necessarily equal notability. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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, based largely on the low rate of participation. Not relisting a third time as unlikely to result in 'delete' at this point, hence the NCS close. Daniel (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

RainStor

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

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

Article is referenced only by announcements for a failed database product. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Landers, Garth; Dayley, Alan; Childs, Sheila (2014-06-11). "Magic Quadrant for Structured Data Archiving and Application Retirement". Gartner. Archived from the original on 2014-07-26. Retrieved 2021-02-01.

     This analyst report provides 438 words of coverage about RainStor. It has a "Cautions" section, which notes:

     While RainStor provides retention, legal hold and other repository management functions, it does not provide front-end application business logic for identification of data for archiving, and must rely on partners for this capability, if required.

     No UI is available for management operations, including archiving processes. Interaction with the system is via command line interface or Java API. ODBC/JDBC interfaces are supported for query.

  2. Hickins, Michael (2012-10-04). "Big Data Start-Up Raises $12M". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-01. Retrieved 2021-02-01.

     The article contains analysis from a research analyst:

     The company has been in existence since 2004, but has only commercialized its product since 2008. But according to Bantleman, the company now has over 100 customers, including two of the top five telecom operators in North America and one of the country's largest investment banks. It also has agreements with companies such as H-P, Amdocs and other systems resellers. Gartner analyst Merv Adrian says having gained experience serving a wide variety of large customers shows the company is ready for prime time. "Their ability to deliver what they promise is demonstrable," he said. ... Gartner's Adrian notes, "this is not a couple of guys in a garage in Palo Alto. They’ve earned the right to be taken seriously."

  3. Adzic, Gojko (2011). "Chapter 13: RainStor". Specification by Example: How Successful Teams Deliver the Right Software. Shelter Island, New York: O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-1-61729-008-4. Retrieved 2021-02-01.

     The book notes, "RainStor is a UK company that builds high-capacity data archiving and management systems. RainStor is an interesting case study because they deal with a technical domain where complexity comes from high data volumes and high-performance requirements, combined with advanced compression and data management algorithms. The company has fewer than 30 employees, and about half of them work in Research and Development, so they have to be efficient in building and supporting their software. All the developers and testers work as part of the same Scrum team, although they’re now thinking about splitting it into two."

  4. Mellor, Chris (2010-01-20). "Will RainStor data deduplication change the database game?". The Register. Archived from the original on 2020-08-06. Retrieved 2021-02-01 – via Computer Weekly.

     The article includes detailed analysis of the company:

     There are huge changes for RainStor here: a new software release; the extension to the cloud; a large increase in partnerships, with EMC obviously needing lots of attention; the company rebranding; and relocating its headquarters from grassy old-world Gloucester to live-wire Silicon Valley.

     If Bantleman's right and the technology is as good as he says, and EMC loves it to bits, then, fingers crossed, fame and an IPO fortune awaits. If he's wrong, then a fate like that of Copan Systems, InPhase Technologies and Verari Systems lies ahead.

  5. Soares, Sunil (2012). Big Data Governance: An Emerging Imperative. Boise, Idaho: Independent Publishers Group. p. 257. ISBN 978-1-58347-377-1.

     The book notes: "Big transaction data and M2M data RainStor uses data compression techniques to reduce the volume of big data. RainStor delivers two editions of its database product to manage massive volumes of structured, semi-structured, and unstructured data such as telephone CDRs, utility smart meter readings, and log files: [discussion of the two editions] RainStor offers significant improvements over LZO and Gzip, which are the preferred techniques to compress data in Hadoop. RainStor also supports SQL access to the underlying data so that data can be accessed directly by business intelligence tools."

  6. Whittle, Sally (2009-05-26). "Clearpace puts archived data in the cloud". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2014-04-26. Retrieved 2021-02-01 – via CNet.
  7. Mellor, Chris (2012-02-16). "Big data elephant mates with RainStor". The Register. Archived from the original on 2021-02-01. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow RainStor to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• An alternative to deletion is to merge RainStor to Teradata, the company that acquired it, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I would prefer to keep RainStor as a standalone article because a merge of the entire article would be undue weight.

  Cunard (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Comment Cunard, you have been asked several times by many editors in the past to stop placing walls of references at AfDs. All that is required is for you to link to our 2/3/4 best references. You've posted 7 here, but you've posted 10 at another AfD and 27 at yet another. Please rein it in. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep There is reference to at least two analyst reports on the company and their product. This meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• A*Delete I do see so the necessary references--the Gartner reports are routine voerage, if those are. the ones being referred to. We've never accepted their Magic Quadrant as enough for notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is a duplicate "Delete" comment as you are the AfD nominator. Analyst reports from Gartner are not routine coverage. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Although RainStor is not a publicly traded corporation, the guideline says analyst reports can be used to establish notability for companies. Cunard (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 14:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ujjivan Small Finance Bank

Ujjivan Small Finance Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any that do. The existing references in the article are all based on announcements, PR, interviews and information provided by the company, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails our guidelines for companies/organizations WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep A WP:LISTED company with several analyst reports covering the company in great detail [13] [14] [15]. It is a small finance bank licensed and governed by the RBI, so it forms an integral part of the Indian banking sector. M4DU7 (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The analyst reports found by M4DU7 from Angel Broking, ICICI Bank, and HDFC securities establish notability. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."

  Cunard (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Haley Gibby

Haley Gibby (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 GNG and NMUSIC.–Cupper52^Discuss! 15:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 15:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - "I Remember" is one of the all-time greats in its genre. With that being said I can't actually find any in-depth coverage of her at all. I'd be interested to know if anyone has loads of old music mags and would be able to have a look and see if she ever featured in any. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I also could not find any coverage (and 2008 is late enough that I doubt there's much in print). One of the frustrating unfortunate cases where an artist definitely has reached a level of success that would justify music press covering her and thus creating reliable sourcing, it's just that nobody's actually done it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete No effective sources. scope_creep^Talk 13:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No GNG claim. Kolma8 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Motile (record label)

Motile (record label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Twice declined WP:A7 and was also a contested PROD. It seems the main reason this hasn't been deleted is because Robert Jarvis, who released one album through this label, had won an award at the British Composer Awards but notability is not inherited as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Companies need to pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG and I can see no evidence of that for this label. According to their website and Discogs, this label has only ever had two releases. My WP:BEFORE search did not yield any coverage about this label that could be considered as direct and in-depth coverage so I cannot see how this passes NCORP.

I checked British newspapers, news coverage, books and tried a couple of search engines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and JPL. How many of these non-notable record labels are still there? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

GhostDestroyer100 - I'm about halfway through the UK ones at the moment but am only nominating the absolutely blatantly non-notable ones. Funnily enough, almost all of them had been PRODed in the past but had been contested because of presumed notability. I have skipped over about 20 or so that probably fail the guidelines as well but where there might be some weak claim to importance or notability but where the evidence is still lacking. It's not helped by the fact that there isn't really a clear guideline for assessing their notability. I am holding them to GNG and NCORP but many in the Wikipedia community would believe it more appropriate to hold them to NMUSIC and assess their influence on music, in the same way we would a rock band. Motile fails NMUSIC, GNG and NCORP so should be deleted regardless. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Kochi Rajavu

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

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I was able to find a review on Sify - https://www.sify.com/movies/kochi-rajavu-review-malayalam-pclvIIgiffiag.html . There are other reliable sources which indicate that the movie was successful http://specials.rediff.com/movies/2008/feb/12sli1.htm . More references surely existed at the time of release, but they cannot be traced online now as with most other old Malayalam movies of note. Jupitus Smart 14:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart:: The first link is to a sify review "By Moviebuzz" while another link mentions the movie less than in passing. Can you please highlight how does it pass WP:NFILM and WP:GNG? Kolma8 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It is unclear how the name used by the reviewer would have any bearing on the review. The second article shows that the movie was successful, and coupled with the fact that the movie had a famous set of cast and crew, it is evident that the movie had more reviews in its time. If you may, you can check for any of the recent movies of the cast and crew, all of whom are probably past their prime, to understand the amount of press coverage their movies generate. Just because none of our fellow editors, including me has any incentive in going to newspaper offices to check for newspapers that came at that time, to look for reviews and other write-ups about the movie, doesn't mean we delete all the articles that pre-dated the internet boom in India, and were made in WP:AGF. Best. Jupitus Smart 16:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I really was hoping you will point out which criteria of WP:NFILM and WP:GNG the subject of this article passes/meets... Still disagree with your argument, but I do appreciate you taking your time to provide it. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep as per the reliable source review identfied in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: I was able to find a review from Times of India [16]. And Kolma8 (talk · contribs), please make sure you nominate the old films for AFD carefully the next time. I happened to see you nominating some movies without doing very thorough WP:Before. Most of the low rated old movies you are nominating for AFD actually has theatrical release. Sadly sources does exist and we cannot keep here and I totally agree with it. But while you nominate some movies where there are some high profile casting involved, you can have some detailed WP:Before. This case itself, sources exist, but its hard to find. So please take some time and if you dont know Malayalam language, its then more hard to find sources. Since these are old movies, its really really hard to find sources. And some recent sources are available in malayalam language. Happy editing Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 12:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Kashmorwiki (talk · contribs), thank you for your input and appreciate your effort in saving the article. I wasn't able to find a review from Times of India at the link you have provided. It is merely an IMDB-like entry. Please make sure to provide an actual review that will satisfy WP:NFO, "full-length reviews by ... nationally known critics." I really still don't see the subject of the article meeting WP:NFILM and/or WP:GNG, but do respect opinions of the community. Thank you again... R., Kolma8 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Kolma8 (talk · contribs), WP:NFILM clearly says that in cases where its hard to find sources and establish notability, we consider other option. If the film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career, then its considered notable. According to a reliable source Times of India and some other ones, some of the major personalities in Malayalam film industry is a part of this film and had a theatrical release which makes it notable by virtue. And about the link I have provided, we don't look whether it is an IMDB like review; We are only considering whether the source is reliable or not. I hope you know Times of India is one of a reliable source here.. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Found more sources: Kolma8 (talk · contribs), Since you asked me whether I can show sources, I took some time I dont have because this is clearly a disapppinting nomination for me. So please have a look at all of these. I found more than 5 sources. [17]. This one establishes the movie had theatrical release. And please see [18]. The article mentions that The actress Kavya has also revealed her penchant for comedy through movies like Meesa Madhavan, Kochi Rajavu and Paapy Appacha. See this one [19]. The opening sentence itself says this is conidered as one of the best comedy movies by actor Dileep. And if you want more, please see [20] This one says Veteran Malayalam actor Geetha Salam who has acted in several super hit films such as Gramaphone, Kochi Rajavu... And see this one [21], this one [22] and [23]. (Please have some time to read it or you wont find anything). All these sources confirms that the movie was a major blockbuster and is notable. I hope these ones satisfies you now. So I just want to say one thing to you. You may not get sources for old movies that covers entirely about that movie. But you will surely get lot of sources like this. WP:GNG says multiple sources can be combined together to establish notabilty. And in cases of old movies, this is a big point to consider. You will surely get sources like this if you are doing a very good WP:Before. And if you are short of time for this, then please dont nominate for AFD unnecessarily unless you are sure it dont have sources. Instead you can tag with some notability tag or something like that. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Kashmorwiki (talk · contribs), thanks for your reply. I have reviewed the references above and in all of them the film is mentioned merely in passing. Again, although I respect your opinion, but reserve my right to disagree with you. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Kolma8 (talk · contribs), You can disagree or agree with me. Thats your right and I have nothing to say with it. In my review, the film is notable and have been covered in multiple sources including a review from Time of India. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Kashmorwiki, this movie does not have a review from Times of India. But, that's fine. Guud luck, Kolma8 (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5: Weareme234 Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Electronic Manufacturing Cluster, Jamshedpur

Electronic Manufacturing Cluster, Jamshedpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

One of the smaller EMCs being built in India. see project webpage Promotional tone and under construction. If an article on EMCs were created it might merit a couple of sentences but does not itself merit its own article. Created by suspected sockpuppet promoting all thing Jamshedpur. noq (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Honey Tongue (US band)

Honey Tongue (US band) (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 band, nothing found to help in a WP:BEFORE. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Tagged for WP:N for 12 years. –Cupper52^Discuss! 15:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

*Merge into Josephine Wiggs article, she is clearly notable but the band is largely noteworthy as her side project. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• • @Gnomingstuff: I believe that's the British band Honey Tongue you refer to, not the American Honey Tongue (US band) the AFD is for. PotentPotables (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • apologies, not sure why I thought it was the other way around! Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Clig

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Clig
• Articles for deletion/Clig (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Clignett

Clig (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 article has no references and has hardly been touched since 2006. There are 3 external links: 2 are archived links of primary sources from 2006 which have since been deleted or moved, and 1 no longer works. A Google search reveals little other information besides incidental mentions and text apparently recycled from the Wikipedia article itself. Rublov (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rublov (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: The 2006 AfD was withdrawn but I don't see the links added during that discussion as sufficient for current notability standards or those suggested in the WP:NSOFT essay, nor are my searches finding better than occasional brief listings. AllyD (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Daniel (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Chris Ward (playwright)

Chris Ward (playwright) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Perhaps others can do better, but I found almost nothing in terms of quality secondary sources. Possibly (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GentlemanGhost (séance) 04:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete lacks the level of 3rd-party, indepdent, reliable source significant coverage to lead to a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. My first question was, "Who?" However, after doing a bit of digging, I did manage to find a few secondary sources. My opinion is that the write-ups in The Stage and the British Theatre Association journal Drama alone are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. In addition to those, I've added more references—some primary, some secondary—from sources perhaps not quite as notable. I'll continue adding to the article but I think there's already enough there to warrant keeping it. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 00:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been improved and good references now per above. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per GentlemanGhost. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if there were plenty of reliable sources, they would be sources on a subject insufficiently notable because none of the four criteria of WP:AUTHOR are met. Criterion 2: "... similar to guerilla theater" – unspecific; 3: doesn't appear that the work is the primary subject of multiple ... reviews etc. & 4. no sign. critical attention. The more specific WP:AUTHOR need be applied not the more general WP:GNG. Clarification: not that the GNG doesn't apply but the AUTHOR SNG clarifies what the vague language of GNG (such as "significant") means in this context — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. To your point about WP:AUTHOR, I found multiple reviews of Ward's shows with Wet Paint Theatre in The Stage, [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30]. Unfortunately, these reviews are hidden behind a paywall, so I had been reluctant to cite them. However, in response to your comment, I have added some. It's tricky to get access to reviews and critical commentary from just prior to the advent of the Web. Still, I continue to believe this article meets the criteria for inclusion. Cheers. GentlemanGhost (séance) 22:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

MidiNameDocument

MidiNameDocument (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 notability. When I PROD'd this, the single source was not independent. It was de-PROD'd by the creator, who added two more, one being simply a self-published list of MIDNAMs the website owner has collected over the years (not reliable or substantive coverage), and the other being an entry in a directory of filetypes (maybe reliable, but not the kind of substantive coverage that indicates notability). In any case, even if we take that last source to be suitable, that's still only one, and we can't hang a GNG pass on one source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Zero independent coverage. SK2242 (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect To the MIDI article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDIC – analogy: Wikipedia is not a technical standards glossary/lexicon. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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 20:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Black Clothes

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

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

Lacks WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV Jenyire2 11:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 11:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't find anything either. Barring coverage showing up that I didn't find, this is a delete on my end. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Asif Kamal Foundation

Asif Kamal Foundation (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 organization, likely covert advertising. The article relies on brief mentions and sponsored news articles. M4DU7 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

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 20:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Christmas Magic (film)

Christmas Magic (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)

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources - only can find short blurbs or reviews from blogs, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a subject's own website and a listing in the non-reliable IMDb are not enough to show that anything is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Hallmark movies are awesome, but the sheer volume with which they pump out tasty little morsels of holiday schmaltz makes it harder for individual ones to gain media attention. This is one of those ones that just never gained any substantial coverage in the media beyond trivial mentions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 14:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of whether it was distributed theatrically or on television, a film is not automatically notable just because IMDb and its own self-published production website offer technical verification that it exists — the notability test for films is a question of the amount of reliable source coverage about the film that can or cannot be shown in media to demonstrate the film's significance: attention from film or television critics, indication that it won or was nominated for one or more notable film or television awards, and on and so forth. But there are no claims like that on offer here, and nothing that the article does say is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any actual sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. No evidence of notability. --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Olaf Koszela

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

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

PROD contested but no reason provided. I can find no evidence that he meets either WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. He is not currently playing in a league listed at WP:FPL either so I would support deletion over draftifying. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Can be restored if/when he plays at a higher level. GiantSnowman 11:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - as already pointed out, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of Glenn Gould's career

Timeline of Glenn Gould's career (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 topic is already covered in prose at Glenn Gould. No need to duplicate it as a list. A list of all of his concert performances and recording sessions as the de-PRODder mentioned would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Pontificalibus 09:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, entirely redundant. Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Indiscriminate list of some major and many minor moments in Gould's career that someone decided to turn into listcruft. Unnecessary because the major points are described in prose form, and with sources, at Gould's main article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete this is a not at all justified content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Azuredivay (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. We really don't need a comprehensive list of every individual performance he ever gave. The important stuff is already noted in his biographical article; the rest is just indiscriminate trivia. (Kiwanis festivals? Seriously?) As significant as Glenn Gould obviously was, he wasn't such a unique notability case as to need special treatment that other important and influential musicians, like Oscar Peterson and Miles Davis and Yo-Yo Ma and Luciano Pavarotti and Elton John, aren't getting. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Marielle Legair

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

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

Contested PROD, the user's reasoning can be found here.

There's a fair bit of self-promotion going on, but aside from that, I am not actually convinced that the sources provided are enough to establish notability (WP:NBIO). A detailed look at the sources can be found on the article talk page.

Some of the claims are either unverified or fall-short of the what is implied.For example, under the Career section, it says that she's worked with the BBC, but the reference provided is actually a feature on Louise Broni-Mensah (apparently a client), and not Marielle. [31] There is some ambiguity over what the author means by media coverage: some examples (ie. BBC), are about a client rather than Marielle.

The blurb on her personal website [32] says that she has had "media features" in Forbes, Bloomberg, Financial Times and Essence, but there are no links provided and I've been unable to independently verify this. KH-1 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete obvious promotional article that looks like a CV. The cited sources are mostly dependent sources based on customer sites, not based on independent sources. Fails GNG. Graywalls (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - this is becoming somewhat of a witchhunt with dubious undertones rather than a balanced view. The cited sources WERE mostly dependent sources based on customer sites after the profile was unfairly edited to make it look that way. You can now see all of the original references which include Red Bull Amaphiko Academy, New York Public Library, PR Week, Black to Business and Black Enterprise. The page is also now linked to from Louise Broni-Mensah Passes GNG. Bamberini8 11:16, 11 February 2021 (AEDT)
• Delete Social media such as FB, Linked and YouTube cannot be used as a source. The articles written by herself can also not be used. The best source seems to Black Enterprise, but overall there is not significant coverage here to meet WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. To Bamberini8: If you are connected contributor, you must disclose this. Check WP:COI and WP:PAID. There are content on this article that is not available in the sources. For example, how would you know what her GPA was? Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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 14:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Bold name

Bold name (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 unusual article which discusses the term ‘bold-name’ as used in journalistic prose. I think there is probably a dictionary definition in here, but the rest looks to me like the creator’s interpretation of the connotations of the term as used in multiple examples produced by a google search. I’m not sure this is an encyclopaedic topic at all. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - the sources, as far as I can tell, use the phrase without actually discussing it. I can't find any sources discussing the usage of the phrase itself. As the nom says, this is probably one for Wiktionary until and unless we get a few secondary sources discussing the usage of the phrase and/or its importance. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Author request: If it isn't yet article-quality, can it be draftified? Pi314m (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Articles absolutely can be draftified as a result of a deletion discussion, however the idea of draftspace is as an "under construction" area for articles that are not yet ready for mainspace. I am skeptical that this article will ever be much more than a dictionary definition, barring some new coverage being published about the phrase in reliable, secondary sources. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Chantal Wiertz

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

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

Some holders of the title Miss Curaçao have articles, and others don’t. I guess some may be notable, and others, not. This one doesn’t look notable to me, but I’m bringing it here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:BLP1E, no inherent notability attached to beauty contests. ☆ Bri (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete if all the coverage is just for being a contestant in a specific beauty contest, this fails BLP1E.18:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

List of mayors of Durham, Ontario

List of mayors of Durham, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completely unsourced list of entirely non-notable people. Durham is a small town with a population of just 2.6K now, so its mayors aren't getting any notability freebies under WP:NPOL just for having existed as mayors -- which makes this just a meaningless list of names, and we shouldn't be keeping lists of non-notable people without really solid sources. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete if sources cannot be found. Keep if the list can be sourced.--User:Namiba 13:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of all knowledge. That this unsourced list has stood as an article for over 15 years is truly a travesty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LISTN as a list about a non-notable topic, which due to its scope will always consist of people who are not (necessarily) individually notable. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Probably could have been PROD'd but this list is not notable. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments. And I don't see sourcing as determinant of its notability in any way, per WP:NPOL. The subject of the identity of all mayors for a small town will never be a notable subject, regardless of sourcing per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and likely wouldn't be an encyclopedic addition to the top level article (per WP:DUE) either. Therefore a redirect, which just like a PROD could have probably been done BOLDly, isn't really appropriate either. 65.129.46.123 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. None of the mayors meet WP:NPOL, and a list of a bunch of non-notable names that will almost certainly never get pages isn't a useful or informative article. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. (non-admin closure) ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 04:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Dragonfly (Marvel Comics)

Dragonfly (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Half a year ago I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson without any detailed rationale. A merge was suggested by User:BOZ to List of Marvel Comics characters: D but declined few months ago by User:Rtkat3 on technical grounds (edit summary: "No merge discussion was made for this."). I would be fine with merge, but since it was declined, I think we need to discuss the future of this article here (and there is the added problem of this article relying solely on primary references to the comic books, so there is no independently referenced content to merge). If this is deleted, I would suggest a soft delete by simply redirecting this to the list suggested by BOZ. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D per above notes, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge per BOZ. I'm persuaded that there isn't sufficient coverage to meet WP:N, and would support deletion. But hoping there is a valid merge target to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the style of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Rtkat3, Would you mind clarifying your rationale for the keep part? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • While she has been part of different groups, there were some issues where she acted on her own and did not have lesser appearances. As I mentioned for the merge part, I would support @BOZ:'s style of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Selective Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D, the article is sourced solely to primary sources, and I could not find any better ones, meaning this character fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Absolutely 0 prejudice towards a renomination at any point. This discussion suffered badly from a lack of diverse participation. Daniel (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Antje Douvern

Antje Douvern (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. Sources given are databases and one passing mention on a sportsclub website. Looking for other sources gave no results. Fram (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable speed skater.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep is a notable German speed skaters. Skated at ISU World Cups and is a medalist at European championships. You can’t find the 1980s and 1990s newspaper articles via Google. (Please tell me where I can find old German newspapers!!) With local sources I showed the nominator many times a speed skater is notable. I showed the national speed skaters from the Netherlands are notable and even the international lower-level Mongolian speed skaters. But I found sources about her, from more recent events 1, 2, 3. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Medalist at inline speed skating, which gets a lot less attention than ice speed skating. Your sources are two from a local newspaper in the section "regionalsport" (one about her, one where she is interviewed about someone else), and one from the organisation she works for. As for "With local sources I showed the nominator many times a speed skater is notable. ": a few times this was the outcome, at other times it was shown that a speed skater, even one who participated in ISU world cups, wasn't notable (just like articles on Dutch speed skaters have been deleted). Fram (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It doesn’t matter if it is a regional source! (See also AfD Wendy van der Poel). See another source here, and see more when googling. I’m not going into detail about one that was deleted, also because we didn’t look in the national news sources of that era during the AfD. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • That "another" source is the same one you labeled "1" in your previous reply. Fram (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. 1 World Cup event (Inzell, January 1986 with 3 races in it) thoughout her career is nowhere near good enough to pass WP:SPORTCRIT or underlying guidelines. It's closer to a joke, actually. Geschichte (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: closer to delete than keep currently but no clear consensus yet, another 7 days may find a resolution
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note The article has multiple reliable secondary sources about the subject. That is what is needed for WP:GNG. Besides of that I proved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylke Luding that all secondary German sources as newspapers and sport magazines of the era of her active career, are not online. And as the German countries were the best in that era; it’s highly likely the sources exist. Also, it’s a common thing in speed skating that of the best nations many notable speed skater cann’t represent their nation at international competitions; as only a few speed skaters can participate at the international events. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anybody else want to weigh in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep - the 3 refs stated in the creator's initial keep just about show a passing of GNG, in my view Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 14:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Saira Peter

Saira Peter (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 satisfy WP:BASIC SpareSeiko (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Nominator nominated the page as failing WP:BASIC, without even checking the references, The page was nominated while I was editing it.Dtt1^Talk 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I already checked for the sources online on the web. I still think he doesn't qualify WP:BASIC. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The subject is a female opera singer Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete no where near meeting our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:GNG through multiple reliable source pieces about her. Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article such as full articles in The Express Tribune, Gulf News, and other national reliable sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: in addition to the sources in the article there is this substantial Western media piece (https://www.ozy.com/around-the-world/on-a-high-note-meet-the-worlds-first-sufi-opera-singer/93273/) that I am adding. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Now added; I also found sources besides the one I mentioned, and from what I can tell this just scratches the surface. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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 , noting Bearian's comments for why this is NCS rather than Keep. Daniel (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Shlomit Haber-Schaim

Shlomit Haber-Schaim (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 fails WP:GNG. Has only one source Jenyire2 (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 07:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Jenyire2, there's a bibliography at http://www.shlomithart.com/st/?p=bibliography and a list of reviews at http://www.shlomithart.com/st/?p=reviews Vexations (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment She is in the Smithsonian's permanent collection; source added. Possibly (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not think you meant what you said. I do not believe Haber-Schaim is housed at the Smithsonian. I believe what you meant to say is "she has work that is contained in the Smithsonian's permanent collection".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Technically, this artist might be notable, but we'd need to add a lot more information, such as an actual biography. Please ping me if you find more details. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, her extensive work, with a lifetime of occasional successes, adds to the source material. The Smithsonian permanent collection holding doesn't come easy or else it would include millions of artists, and adds to her notability range. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep or at least Wait. I'm inclined to agree with Randy Kryn, she definitely seems notable even if poorly sourced. WestCD (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • WestCD, wait for what and for how long? Vexations (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Ok just Keep. WestCD (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:NARTIST, works held in Smithsonian American Art Museum - "Folds"; and Information Center for Israeli Art (part of Israel Museum) - "Untitled", "Scope", "Coexistence", and "Untitled". Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Daniel (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Leliter, California

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

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

In spite of being the location of a post office, everything I could find indicates it was a rail location, with one source referring to it as "Leliter siding". It was used as a staging area for construction of the California Aqueduct, and possibly there was a work camp here at the time, but not too long after that the rails were taken up. I found one site with some pictures ostensibly taken there, but all they show is an array of concrete foundations which one would expect to support structural steel posts: they suggest a water tower or hopper, not anything like commercial or residential structures. At any rate even the ghost town websites seem to simply assume this was a town rather than report any thing that shows it was a town. The ever-reliable California railroad regulators approved the closing of a non-agency station here, and that and the post office are as close as anything gets to showing this was a town, and they aren't close enough. Note that it is necessary to put the name in quotes when using Google, because otherwise it makes lots of false matches. Mangoe (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for locations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Multiple reliable sources describe Leliter as a populated place:

• [33] - "Orand G. Siebenthal of Leliter, Kern county".
• [34] - Describes Leliter as a "small cluster of homes" and "a town".
• [35] - There was a school in Leliter.
• [36] - A "small town" which is "steadily growing and improving".
• [37] - Describes children coming from Leliter to attend school.
• [38] - Describes an earthquake being felt in Leliter by an observer "sitting in a new, 1-story, stucco house". Magnolia677 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Per the excellent research by Magnolia677. Satisfies WP:NPLACE. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete yet another useless town stub. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Blubabluba9990, in your month on Wikipedia you have made 58 edits, and nearly all of them have been to AFDs where you wrote "useless town stub". Could you expand on that? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry there are a lot of them, and the responses just got condensed as I wrote more of them. By "useless town stub" I meant another one of those town articles that is one sentence long and has zero sources. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Blubabluba9990: Were you able to look at the sources above? Magnolia677 (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

They do not necessarily describe how the town is notable though. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Towns, unlike people, don't need to establish notability, only official recognition. Per WP:NPLACE, "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source." That being said ... Clarityfiend (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A couple of Magnolia677's sources identify it as a "railroad siding" and an "aqueduct supply station". The others aren't from (geographically) official sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ibrahim Bardhi

Ibrahim Bardhi (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 of a politician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The only office this article indicates he ever held is chairman of a district council in a small municipal area -- which is a local office, not a national one, and thus isn't an "inherently" notable role that would automatically guarantee inclusion. At the local level of political office, the notability test does not hinge on writing and sourcing the bare minimum necessary to demonstrate that he existed, but on writing and sourcing some serious substance about his political significance: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the area, and on and so forth. But there's no content like that here, and with just two footnotes of which one is a blurb and the other is just a long list of names, there's not nearly enough sourcing to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu of having to show any actual substance. Also, the lack of an article about an Albanian politician on the Albanian Wikipedia is not a strong sign that he would have a stronger notability claim than this article is making. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete his level of office is not high enough to give notability, and the sourcing is not enough to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not pass WP:NPOL and I’m not seeing any other basis for notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Advanced Science and Technology Education Center

Advanced Science and Technology Education Center (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 charter school. Nothing to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete My brief online search also did not yield any substantial results. wikitigresito (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - you'll find far more sources if you use ASTEC Charter School as your search term, so many in fact, that a move discussion should be the next order of business after this closes. 174.254.192.159 (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I did a search for ASTEC Charter School and the only thing that came up were two results in Google News. Both of which are extremely trivial. One is about them breaking ground on a new building is about them receiving a "STEM Gift." Whatever that is. Neither pass WP:NORG. The next article down is about rodent droppings in a Chinese restaurant. Which clearly isn't relevant and things don't get any better from there. 12 results or so down is a local article about something throwing a plastic cow off the schools roof as a prank. At least that one is about the school, sorta. Although, it's still not helpful. So, although there are technically "results" if you use ASTEC Charter School as the search term, they clearly aren't relevant, useful, or help establish notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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 USS Harry F. Bauer. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Harry F. Bauer

Harry F. Bauer (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:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to USS Harry F. Bauer. Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here. The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge (very selectively) to USS Harry F. Bauer per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."  // Timothy :: talk  05:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a ship named after you is not a signficant honor under the conditions under which this naming actually occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer, it's more appropriate to have relevant information (specifically military career and silver star action) about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The article contains significant coverage to write an article with per GNG. -- GreenC 21:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
  

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer, selectively, following GPL93's suggestion. He doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER, or WP:GNG, and contrary to what has been said, having a ship named after you is not part of any SN. Also, unless I missed something in the article, or in the sources, he was not awarded the Navy Cross, but the Silver Star. which is a couple of grades lower than the Navy Cross. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Enough reference material to fill an article with, so against merging. Having a military ship named after you is a significant award or honor and thus passes WP:ANYBIO. Dream Focus 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

None of the references are about Bauer though. Three are in relation to the ship named after him, one is about a ship that he served on, and one is focused on a completely different person. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The first reference in the article shows ample information about him, and his heroic action that earned him a silver star and got a ship named after him. The fact that it then mentions information about that ship afterwards is not relevant. He is notable for his actions, and winning a significant award and honor for it. Dream Focus 00:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer, insufficient SIGCOV of the individual to meet GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC).
• I'm inclined go with selective merge with USS Gregory (DD-82) given that the narrative goes with that ship rather than the destroyer which honored him, but merger to either ship is preferable. It's the same story as with the run of "sailors after whom destroyers were named" articles; I'm also seeing the same problem here as with the Ault article, that almost all the biography is unsourced. It seems to me that the principle ought to be that these sailors and marines are documented in the article either on the ship named after them, or on that of the ship/battle where their notable action occurred. I prefer the latter but in particular I just don't see what we are gaining by, in most of these instances, repeating the same story of their heroism in three different articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I am working on adding sources. At AFD, I assume that those who vote will do their own search and see whether sources exist. This goes for the proposer. And you are supposed to be looking at sources, whether they are cited in Wikipedia or not. WP:Notability does not depend on article quality. As I said, dumping lots of AFDs all at once is just an attempt to get the article axed. I can't update all these articles that quickly. You could add sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Merge into USS Harry F. Bauer, fails GNG, only one reliable source provides SIGCOV. Cavalryman (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is trendings towards a merge result, but Mangoe brings something overlooked amidst all of these ship namesake AfDs. Bauer is both the namesake of a ship (USS Harry F. Bauer), but was also the commander of another ship (USS Gregory) when he carried out the actions that led to a ship being named after him. This is different from the other AfDs, where the subjects were just serving as aviators/crew. Whether this merits a merge/redirect to the Gregory article instead of the Bauer article is worth discussing further. Also, this is the only AfD in this batch that I've closed in which 7&6=thirteen has explicitly said that they were adding sources to, and given the difference in command level I mentioned earlier, is another reason to relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Article has been expanded and new sources added. Sources contain biographical information about Bauer who was both the captain of one ship and had another ship named for him. Even if you were to merge it is not all clear which ship would get the redirect, and there is enough material to merge that it becomes a WEIGHT issue. A separate article solves all these problems and there is sufficient sourcing for GNG. -- GreenC 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing is still the same in that none of them are actually focused on Bauer himself. Three are in relation to the ship named after him, one is about the Gregory, and one is focused on a completely different person who served on the Gregory. Both the Gregory sources are quick mentions, so I think that the weight of what coverage there is leans more towards USS Harry F. Bauer. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in GNG says a source must be "focused", that is an invented high bar. Sources contain biographical information which is sufficient to wrote an article with. Sources contain significant coverage, as others here have stated. You are welcome to disagree, it is an opinion, but what is your point, of course you disagree you didn't !vote to Keep. -- GreenC 21:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well it does say coverage needs to be "Direct and in detail", which really only leaves his Silver Star citation and the opening paragraph of the USS Bauer's DANFS entry. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to The Queen's Gambit (miniseries). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Moses Ingram

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

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors and actresses are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they've had roles -- the notability test does not hinge on listing roles, but on showing that she has been the subject of reliable source media coverage about her and her roles. But two of the three sources here are her IMDb profile and a user-generated fanwiki dedicated to the show she's in, which are not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all -- and while the third source (Decider) is marginally okay, it's not substantive enough to get her over the notability bar all by itself if it's the only acceptable source on offer. Note also that this was originally created as a redirect, which I've ended up having to delete via page-moving as the creator of this version moved it from sandbox to a title which retained an unacceptable leading slash. So no prejudice against also restoring the original redirect if desired -- but the sourcing on offer here isn't good enough to get her a standalone biographical article yet. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Restore the redirect. There is an existing article in draft space which is an improved version of the article which was moved (incorrectly) into main space. Previously the redirect mentioned the draft article and all was well, moving the obviously poor article to mainspace was a bad move which just confused things. The most laughable error is the claim that she is a paralegal and studied at KSU, sourced to a fan wiki about the character she plays. She is expected to get more notable roles and to have sufficient sources to support an article in due course. Mean time, any edits/improvements should be made to the draft article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Edit: Found a good article at Elle magazine, certainly a reliable source. If this is good enough to get it over the line, then move the draft space article to main space. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) as it's the only notable role she has so far. The interview with Elle is a sign that she is beginning to be noticed, but it's still WP:TOOSOON. She would need multiple roles to meet WP:ENT. That interview also says she is in The Tragedy of Macbeth, but that hasn't been released yet.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment We've got 3 notable roles (doesn't get much bigger than Joel Coen and Michael Bay) and multiple reliable sources now. IMO the draft is ready for main space. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Being cast in a film that hasn't been released yet doesn't help an actress get over WP:NACTOR — we only consider roles that have already been released, not future ones, so neither the Macbeth nor Ambulance casting announcements are doing anything at all to help. Winning a student award from her own alma mater, sourced to the school's own self-published press release, does nothing to establish her notability either. So the only source that's getting anywhere is the Elle piece, but it takes more than just one piece of that calibre to finish the job. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't read anything at all in NACTOR to support the view that unreleased films count for nothing... but whatever. Just restore the redirect and stop editing that article, an older inferior version of the draft article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hamza Haniffa

Hamza Haniffa (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 meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO / WP:GNG. Is mainly a collection of primary sources and self promotional material. None of the "awards" are notable awards and almost all of them lack verifiable reference citations. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable Sri Lankan businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep He is a one of richest Sri Lankan businessman in our country. Im also Sri Lankan.and also he is the icon of Sri Lanka in 2017 I have physical news Paper about him. Any Sri Lankan person know who is hamza. User:Lyricsfox (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyircsfox (talk • contribs)

• Comment. You need to provide definitive evidence rather than making empty statements. As I can tell you I don't know who Hamza Haniffa is and a search of the web doesn't show any reliable secondary sources that back your claims. Dan arndt (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete no indication of nobility. This editor has been creating articles which are pure spam. Mostly likely UPE. RationalPuff (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Noting that this was a good faith nomination but it has been found that the article had been hijacked. Putting the arguments that relate to the hijacked article to one side, there is wide agreement that the original topic, a Ghanaian actor, is notable. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Kojo Dadson

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

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

Semi-advertorialized, and completely unsourced, biography of a person notable only as a member of a youth parliament. As always, this is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source media coverage about him to establish his significance. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Members of youth parliaments do not meet WP:NPOL. Nothing indicates a GNG pass. --Enos733 (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete an unsourced BLP.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Kindly don't delete an unidentified or another editor tempered with the original article information created. Kojo Dadson is an actor not a politician. The original content created of the bio just passed on 10/02/2021. Kindly don't delete, thanks. Jwale2 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The article as written isn't demonstrating notability as an actor either. The notability test for actors is not automatically passed by just every actor who exists, or even just because you can show an obituary upon his death — it's passed by showing a WP:GNG-worthy volume of ongoing career coverage of his performances, not just an obituary and an IMDb entry. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I did not anticipate arguing for a keep, but I did some quick research and found that the gentleman is a rather notorious and highly regarded actor in Ghana. His death made headlines in every major paper in that region, and he had been a major cast member of a popular, modern television program there, as well as several other films. Wikipedia gets accused of Americentrism quite often and this is a prime example as to why. If we want to have a global encyclopedia with equitable, global coverage, I think this article certainly meets the criteria. Any comparable American actor would certainly be allowed an article. PrairieKid (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The article existed before 10 February 2021 which I guess was the date the subject died, I doubt the reason for its existence is because the subject passed away. Unfortunately from the log someone tried creating an article with a similar name to the subject which caused the issues I believe, Anyways the little search I did on the subject shows some relevant information of him being a veteran actor in Ghana and West Africa which must also be considered to ensure articles from that sub region or area also doesn't get dissolved due to the carelessness of some amateur editor who tried creating another article of the Kojo Dadson (politician). The subject has featured in popular movies and contributed to the Ghanaian and West African sub-region. The article must be kept and rather restructured to reflect his full contribution since it meets WP:GNG in my opinion. Ampimd (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - a reminder that AfD nominators should look at the edit history of articles before filing an AfD. Kojo Dadson was clearly a prominent actor in Ghana, plenty of coverage on the topic. --Soman (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep this article has significant coverage and passes the basic test of notability to on Wikipedia. I believed if the article was carefully looked at before nominating for deletion it would have showed his notability. Owula kpakpo (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per the expansion work that has been done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Quick search on Kojo lead to several WP:RS that prove his WP:N. No need to redirect or delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redoryxx (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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 with no delete suggestions. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A Christmas Kiss

A Christmas Kiss (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 television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Reviews at Common Sense Media and Dove are cited in the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw. While I don't think that two reviews will fully constitute as significant coverage, it is the bare minimum described by WP:NF. Thanks @Donaldd23: for the finds. BOVINEBOY2008 21:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wisconsin Ovarian Cancer Alliance

Wisconsin Ovarian Cancer Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD declined (Courtesy @Eastmain:). I am unable to find significant, in depth coverage of this organization and it's work to establish notability. StarM 18:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Despite sources added they are trivial mentions of the organization and do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Most states have alliances, not just for cancer but for other diseases as well, but generally they are not notable. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Google news has about 4 pages of results, mostly are passing mentions, but I think there is enough to show significant coverage and popularity. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment can you please clarify which represent significant, in-depth coverage? All I have been able to locate are passing mentions and obituaries where donations were made. Nothing close to WP:ORG. StarM 16:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep As per above, passes WP:BASIC. Akronowner (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Blocked sock. MER-C 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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 Skywalker family#Han Solo. Consensus is against keeping. Whether and what to merge is up to editors. Sandstein 14:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Solo family

Solo family (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement (not a single source linked discusses the concept of this family in depth, it is mentioned in passing few times and other than that this is a fancrufty plot summary and WP:SYNTH of information about his sister and other relatives). WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar (but I did find three sources - but they are of dubious reliability and don't go beyond a plot summary, but maybe they'll be of some use to someone in the future): [39] (plot summary), [40] (just plot summary trivia about various family members, the family itself is not discussed in a dedicated section), and [41], which again is not about the family as about various relations of its members. I actually think the meme article would be a good addition to the article about Han Solo himself, b/c really it's all about him. But his family doesn't seem to meet our requirement for stand-alone notability. Let's discuss. Ps. There was an old AfD about it in 2004 and even then it was split half and half between keep and delete - and remember, in these early days everyone and their dog tended to be inclusionist :P PPS. Another solution could be to just prune it down to a disambig without a need for a hard delete, perhaps. And before someone tells me AfD is not for discussion of creating a disambig, remember - technically this had an AfD 16 years ago so it needs another one as otherwise one could be in turn accused of disregarding past consensus (which some apparently did judge 'keep' back then, sigh). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I have not yet done a WP:BEFORE to see if there are any further sources not cited in the article, but I have reason to believe that there are plenty to be found given the significant amount of coverage generated by the Star Wars IP in the past 6 years. My response as follows:
  • If I was on Wikipedia and had participated in the 2004 AfD, I would have supported deletion. If the article had seen little to no improvements 16 years on like certain obscure articles which have been gradually rediscovered years later, I'd say the nominator's AfD rationale is fully justified. However, that is clearly not the case here: the article in its present state is extensively sourced, and all of the cited secondary sources only came into existence post-2004. An editor mentioned that they did an extensive rewrite of the article back in 2012 to cleanup its issues and it clearly shows, although there is certainly room for improvement. The state of the sourcing clearly makes a WP:CCOS for the topic and does not give the impression that the issues with the article is insurmountable and requires a hard WP:TNT, rather the opposite and the various measures proposed by WP:ATD should be considered. I would say that it also meets WP:GNG since the themes surrounding the Solo family form a significant plot element of the Star Wars EU novels pre-2012 as well as the new sequel trilogy, but a caveat is that the Skywalker family article actually duplicates much of the scope of its contents because of the marriage between Han Solo and Leia Skywalker.
  • There is a tag for a merge proposal with the Skywalker family article since August 2020 (which have not yet been removed), but no discussion had actually been initiated by the proposer and it's been just left as is, outside of a few comments by other editors who were understandably confused by the lack of an actual proposal by the mergist proposer. I am not sure why the nominator did not proactively pursue that option and restart the discussion, instead of attempting to force a cleanup through AfD (and AfD is WP:Notcleanup) since there are clear solutions recommended by WP:ATD.
  • I personally feel that a deletion rationale which argues that a topic concerning the Solo family is really a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the Skywalker family article makes more sense and might get support then trying to construe the topic as non-notable, which is eminently not true. However, this article on the face of it also seems to meet the requirements of WP:LISTN as Han and Leia have two distinct sets of children between the Legends and the canon universes, and so some prose which puts both versions of the Solo family into context in such a list article makes more sense then in the Skywalker family article. One idea to improve/cleanup the article is to rename/move the article into something like a "List of Han Solo family members" if editors feel strongly about the idea of consistency in the article's title and that it should be renamed, but this should be dealt with in the relevant article's talk page, not AfD.
  • Lastly, I would appreciate if the nominator would cease misrepresenting the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) essay as a "requirement" in every fiction-related AfD they commence. There is no SNG for fictional elements on Wikipedia. It's really misleading to less experienced editors who may not fully comprehend Wikipedia's complex hierarchy of bureaucratic rules and especially its complex notability policies, and it really doesn't lend any credibility to the nominator's arguments with many experienced editors. Haleth (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Haleth, I will reformulate the 'requirement' term in my future noms. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• delete I see no reason to have an overall family article. Anything worth covering can be covered on the articles on the individual people. This article is basically way too focused on in universe issues and not enough on real world issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a few of the individual characters have proven notability with reliable sources. But this is an original synthesis of those separate notable articles into a new topic that itself isn't notable. It's a WP:CONTENTFORK and doesn't cover anything unique that isn't already covered at the individual articles. A redirect to Han Solo as the main notable character would be fine. Jontesta (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Skywalker family, where the Solos are already covered. No need fo duplication, but merging/redirecting is preferable as an alternative, since it is a plausible search term.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - per Jontesta. As they mentioned, while a couple of the individual characters in this fictional family are certainly notable, there are no real sources about the family tree as a whole, and combining information for those several notable topics into a single article is WP:SYNTH. Even the few reliable, non-primary sources being used currently in the article are on specific, notable individuals, not on the family as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:SYNTH and fancruft. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Skywalker family. I find this suggestion compelling, as there that page is notable, and adding the Solo family information in the article makes sense to me. Timmccloud (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect with/to Skywalker family as a plausible alternate search term. These families are - for the purposes of plot - inextricably linked, and the Skywalkers are the more notable (sorry Han!). An awful lot of this article is 'fancruft' written about in-universe topics, of which there is plenty of coverage at our hairy cousin. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect as primary sourced without enough sources to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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. With no prejudice to eventual renomination given low participation (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ernie Smith (Negro leagues)

Ernie Smith (Negro leagues) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. I cannot locate stats or a roster spot for this person on seamheads.com or cnlbr.org or baseball-reference.com. (B-R "Bullpen" [an open wiki] has an article created at the same time and same person that created this article.) The given source is an obit [42] that vaguely refers to playing on a Negro league team at some time. The given team ceased play in 1951 when the subject was 20, but as I stated, I cannot find any other source backing this up. (This palyer should not be confused with Ernest Smith (baseball), also a Negro leaguer.) --Bison X (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete I think we may need to have a discussion on if we should impose a stricter cutoff for Negro league players in light of MLB’s decision to elevated top leagues from 1920-1948. Should all players from post-1948 still be presumed notable, or should they follow a case-by-case basis based on WP:GNG from other possible claims to fame, baseball or otherwise, which it seems Smith fails? Should these players be removed from the list of Negro league baseball players? And what of players like Smith, whose main source of having played is from his obituary and an interview he gave in 2009 saying he played in 1949 and 1950? Most of the remaining redlinks on the list of Negro league players pages are guys whose main source of playing existence is a short blurb on the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. Should these museum profiles even matter for guys from this time frame? Smith doesn’t even have that. These players do not and will not, at least any time soon, have confirmed and verifiable stats, won’t have Seamheads or Baseball-Reference profiles, and aren’t in Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues. Penale52 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Your meta-points are more on a level that would be better addressed at WT:BASEBALL and possibly updating WP:NBASE. If you start a conversation elsewhere, I'll join in there. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Please also include me in the discussions, I would strongly encourage to continue this request. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment We have articles for MLB players that have played in as few as one major league game (which hardly makes them notable in my books, but we keep them here). Unfortunately this article doesn't say in how many games he played, when he played or much of anything. I used to write biographies on the BR Bullpen (I gave up after a site redesign frustrated me), but they have lower notability standards then Wikipedia does. They would allow any minor league player to have an article, which was fine as it allowed anyone to look up a pro baseball player. I'd like to see more Negro League players kept here, but this article as it stands doesn't have much information beyond a casual mention of the player. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Oaktree b and mostly with Penale52. If there were a reliable source that he played in the Negro Leagues prior to 1949 I would have no hesitation about keeping the article. We do have a reliable source that he played in the Negro Leagues but apparently only in the stub period after the time that MLB is recognizing it as a major league. My inclination would be to just apply presumptive notability to all Negro Leaguers, even if they played only in 1949-1950, since there probably few of the latter relative to pre-1949 Negro Leaguers anyway and I am not sure the coverage of Negro Leagues dramatically declined between 1948 and 1949. But since this article has no information about his Negro League career and to the extent there are reliable sources they only relate to the now post-MLB period of the Negro Leagues, I can't object to deletion if others think that is appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is she does not meet notability guidelines. StarM 20:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sofiya Kovalets

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

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

Does not meet WP:TENNIS according to ITF Tennis, Core Tennis and WTA Tennis. No Fed Cup appearances, no main draw WTA or Grand Slam appearances. The only tournaments that she has won are $10k ITF ones. I can't see enough coverage for WP:GNG either but happy to be proved wrong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, as I believe there is enough to satisfy GNG. [This], A sufficiently detailed report of young people playing in the Olympics. But from what I remember these sorts of references were usually enough, despite her career not yet reaching the level required to satisfy the specific tennis player criteria. User:Vecihi91 (talk) 21:20, 04 February 2021 (UTC)

  I have started expanding the article. I do not have any more time to work on it now, but I hope I have shown that there is enough there. User:Vecihi91 (talk) 21:20, 04 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that for a sportsperson to be notable, if they do not meet the SNG, they should meet GNG. All I can see are just results listings and profile pages but no prose or news coverage at all. I'm not aware that competing in the Youth Olympics makes someone notable either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, they were not the Olympics, but the Youth Olympics, and coverage of children's sports is trivial in nature. Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete playing youth sports does not in general lead to notability. We would need better coverage to show otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, as I believe there is enough to satisfy GNG. [This] Tennis Europe organized european Junior Tennis Championship a sufficiently detailed report of success in junior tennis. Also about her junior career [another] Tennis Europe organized European Summer Cup sufficiently detailed report of success in junior tennis.But from what I remember these sorts of references were usually enough, despite her career not yet reaching the level required to satisfy the specific tennis player criteria. User:Vecihi91 (talk) 22:12, 05 February 2021 (UTC)

  I have started expanding the article. I do not have any more time to work on it now, but I hope I have shown that there is enough there. User:Vecihi91 (talk) 22:12, 05 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would take more than a couple of name checks in a junior tennis report to show notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment as article creator. This name (Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles) are on the list. User:Vecihi91 (talk) 13:30, 06 February 2021 (UTC)

  You can only have one bolded !vote per discussion. Iffy★Chat -- 12:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, all the sources presented so far are WP:ROUTINE coverage of sports events that don't even focus on the subject of this article. Iffy★Chat -- 12:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete nothing noteworthy about this player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

National Rebirth Alliance

National Rebirth Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A party that has never won a seat at an election--Not even an election for county counselors. I think this is below our usual level. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It participated only in one parlamentary election since formation so it couldn't get a county councilor. However, like many other romanian parties that have little to non representation in public offices (exemple: Noua Dreaptă, Romanian Socialist Party), it stand out because of it's ideology. This party is the only openly Anti-abortion party in the country and also the only evangelical party. It is also related to a very controversial topic, it's founding members being part of the Coaliția pentru Familie. I just need more time to write the article and add links to it to prove it's importance. User:Barumbarumba (User talk:Barumbarumba) 15:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Your reason isn't holdin up as they are many parties with no representation that have a wikipedia page here List of political parties in Romania#Parties without elected representation. And yes, some of them had representation in the past, but this party is new and didn't had the chance to win any elections. User:Barumbarumba (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I also added aditional content and citations to the page. User:Barumbarumba (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has had additional information and sources added since this AfD began, which suggest that this party likely would be considered notable per WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOL. At a certain point, a political movement can be so small (never gaining more than 0.5% of the vote) as to be basically a fringe idea. We need significant coverage, which I don't see yet. Also it's far to soon for an anti-abortion movement to take hold in a country where many of its citizens have lived experience of the terrible conditions of its orphanage archipelago. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Shashidhar Kote

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

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

Did not think it meets WP:SINGER. Passing mention in the tabloids and fails WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. There is significant coverage in these two refs. [43], [44]. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. 7 sources are not enough to show significance and the first one is self published.Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Seven sources is more than enough if they have significant coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As a singer she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. As an Actress or TV host, there may be something there, but I still don't see any significant sources or significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Current sources satsifies WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Blocked sock. MER-C 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• keep. There are more than 5 references with significant coverage. So it's correct to keep the page. Thanks. User:NinadMysuru (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Animpayamo, California

Animpayamo, California (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 trial balloon for a set of former native settlements in Monterey County which represent yet another out-of-the-norm GNIS source. Someone at USGS found this list of these villages, and ran the whole thing into GNIS is spite of the fact that the only information on any of the is a name and a tribal/nation affiliation. GHits are next to nothing; GBooks comes up with (as far as I can determine) a number of places which reproduced the same list, for some reason: I get a lot of snapshot views, but the clip that's shown is always the same text. Not being able to see the ultimate source, I'm not terribly confident they were even in this county, and given all the various GNIS problems, I'm loathe to take their word on it when there aren't any coordinates. So here we have a point where the usual invocations of WP:GEOLAND break down. There is just no way these spots pass WP:GNG individually: at the moment, the information on each is actually possibly less than what each article says, constituting two sentences of which the second states what we don't know. Even as a group, it seems to me hard to argue that they've been written about at any length. Whatever we come up with for this one, I would expect to apply to the lot; but there's no way I'm going to do a group nom of 12-15 articles given the likelihood of someone taking it down procedurally and making me do everything twice. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment there was a similar discussion awhile back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astakiwi, California. Consensus there formed to delete because we couldn't find strong enough sourcing to pass WP:V. Hog Farm _Talk 18:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or a redirect to List of Ohlone villages may be appropriate. Regardless who lived there, we need more than a context-free name to be notable. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ohlone or to List of Ohlone villages Comment - I understand that non-notable places should be deleted, however, to my mind it does not make sense to remove or exclude information about former Native American settlements or villages. As to the 12–15 articles, if they all are the sites of former N.A. settlements, that info can be merged or redirected into the respective articles on the peoples. For example in the case of this one, it could be merged with Ohlone (Kalindaruk) - there are several sources [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. @Mangoe: I'm willing to look into the 12–15 articles to see if any of the content is worth merging if you send me a list. Thanks in advance, Netherzone (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an excellent proposal by Netherzone. Deleting each of them will flood this AfD (I can already see a lot of nominations and it takes a lot of time to evaluate each). I also agree that Wikipedia should not exclude information about Native American settlements. Of course, if no information is available we can consider merging or redirecting. I am willing to help out if needed.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete (EDIT: or redirect/merge per Reywas) - WP:V tells us what to do in this situation - we cannot even verify the existence of this settlement. We know GNIS is unreliable. We know the guy who created these articles did so without any analysis of the source but instead basically negligently dumping these GNIS stub articles all over wiki, so we can't just assume good faith on their having checked the original document. The article itself says we don't even know where this place is supposed to have been. This is all even before we get on to it failing WP:GEOLAND, which it very obviously does as there is no evidence of either legal recognition or of it being a WP:GNG pass (which as a bare minimum requires two instances of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources). This just ain't it. FOARP (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - The GNIS source is based on this, which is just a bare mention with a list with no explanation, sourced to whoever Taylor was, who in turn got their information from the "mission books". And given about how much the Spanish conquistadors seemed to really care about native culture, I'm not sure that we can really count a bare list dating back to the mission books as a particularly strong thread. I don't see how the context of that source even allowed GNIS to determine the county with certainty; all we are really given is that the old mission books say there was a Native American village of this name. Hog Farm _Talk 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Better (complete and clearly legible) copies of the Handbook of American Indians north of Mexico and related mentions of Animpayamo can be found on the Internet Archive. Paul H. (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)*

• Delete - the lack of a verifiable and reliable source and basic data, e.g. exact location, size, and historic / prehistoric significance makes the creation of useful and proper Wikipedia about this Native American site impossible. unless someone can find adequate source material, Animpayamo fails WP:GEOLAND and lacks evidence of legal recognition or needed to pass WP:GNG. It should be deleted. Paul H. (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Delete Not at all notable enough for an article. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or potentially redirect, this provides no useful encyclopedic information and it's unlikely it will ever be able to. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Ohlone villages. All we know is that it might have existed, but we don't exactly know where. A redirect is appropriate here.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per findings above. A redirect would normally be a good idea, except that this village isn't actually mentioned at the target, so it wouldn't help the reader much at all. Hog Farm _Talk 19:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Noting also that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Pol Monen

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

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

Current sources don't pass WP:GNG SpareSeiko (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SpareSeiko (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - is that including the ones on the Spanish Wikipedia article as well? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has been improved. In any case, the AfD is one of several part of a disruptive and indiscriminate edit rampage by a currently blocked blocked sock puppet account with a clear WP:NOTHERE behaviour (see following thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#"Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay" comment at AfD).--Asqueladd (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG and has two starring roles which is enough to make him notable, in my opinion. User:Asqueladd has demonstrated this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I find the policy- and guideline-based analysis of the sources, especially by SK2242, to be most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

IndeJuice

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

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

No significant coverage of this in reliable sources, fails WP:NCORP. The author had contested the PROD with the reasoning that they had added significant coverage from multiple RS; however, none appear to be SIGCOV at all. SK2242 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Article passes WP:VERIFY with numerous primary sources citing 4 separate regulatory bodies of the UK Government - also goes to credibility under WP:SIGNIF. Three further reliable secondary sources of significance under WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP that are independent of the subject under WP:COMPANY. Article tone is WP:NEUTRAL and adheres to WP:MOS and WP:CS. GXM245 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@GXM245: Let’s have a look at the references:
Reference 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10. Company listings. Not independent SIGCOV
Reference 4. Brief mention from a website writing promotional content. Not independent SIGCOV
Reference 5. Application listing. Not independent or SIGCOV
Reference 6. Two short paragraphs in an article about 5 different companies. Not SIGCOV. SK2242 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@SK2242: Sure, let's take a closer look at the references in light of your comments.
Reference 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 - there has been no dispute that these are validly used under WP:VERIFY as well as establishing WP:SIGNIF via multiple and distinct Government regulatory agency sources as mentioned in my comment above. At the same time, these references also show that the topic is not trivial as defined under WP:HASREFS. At no point has it been stated that these references are to be used for SIGCOV as your comment suggests.
Reference 4 works towards both WP:SIGNIF and SIGCOV. There is a WP:SIGNIF claim that the company's holds the largest catalogue of respective products in the world - this is clearly "a statement in the article that attributes noteworthiness" under WP:SIGNIF. This WP:SIGNIF claim is then supported with a reference from one of the world's leading business analytics providers satisfying WP:Reliability. There is no evidence to suggest that the reference is promotional - this particular SIGCOV is in the format of authoritative advice from the subject of the article about how they keep gross profit healthy with the world's largest inventory for its respective industry. Furthermore the content of the nominated article is clearly WP:NEUTRAL - this has not been disputed and remains valid.
Reference 5 is of crucial importance as it references a significant industry-wide invention that has been verified, referenced and covered by an independent and reliable secondary source under WP:NOTE. This CNET reference certainly satisfies the requirement that "sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability" - if it was not, CNET would not have published the SIGCOV as a reliable secondary source.
Reference 6 is from a reputable news outlet that has been used 47 times on Wikipedia to establish SIGCOV. The article itself supports the significant claim made in the article about the enhanced level of health and safety that the subject company claims to have a proprietary process for and that has been verified to be trademark protected under WP:VERIFY with reference 3.
WP:PERPOLICY states that "sufficient grounds for keeping an article" can be determined by "good argument citing policy". It is clear that this has been satisfied.
In the event that the editor still disagrees for any SIGCOV or WP:NOTE reason, WP:GOODARG makes it clear that when it comes to further references, "you will have to demonstrate that none can ever likely be found". A Google search proves such a strategy to be ineffective in this particular case. GXM245 (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You appear not to be getting the basic facts here. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 are irrelevant for notability, 4 is still a brief mention from a promo website (it even says in the author description they write content to boost traffic), 5 is not independent because it is a listing written by IndeJuice themselves. I never said anything about the reliability of 6, but I pointed out a basic fact that the coverage is minor. 2 short paragraphs in an article about five different companies is not SIGCOV at all. I’ve also checked for more sources twice and found nothing. Zero. SK2242 (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Your reply appears to be an eager repetition of your previous comments and adds no new substance to the debate. I have already provided a detailed response for each of the points you have raised with relevant policy citations for each in my above response in accordance with WP:PERPOLICY. However, for the sake of clarity in regards to your final comment, a simple google of the subject name followed by “news” returns thousands of results. As such, even if we were to give the benefit of doubt to your original argument, your reply still fails to “demonstrate that none can ever likely be found” as clearly required by WP:GOODARG. It would seem much more likely that the article would just benefit from some community assistance if anything. In any event, happy to step aside at this stage in fear or repetition and rely on admin to resolve. Appreciate your time nonetheless. GXM245 (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is you appear to misunderstand what you are citing. You repeatedly bring up SIGNIF but the SIGNIF page itself states it is a lower standard than notability, and the policy is only relevant when someone tries to A7/A9 speedy a page. I also have no idea what you mean by "thousands of results" from your search; if you are using regular search you will get thousands of results that have nothing to do with what you are looking for. Searching for the term IndeJuice in quote marks in Google News brings up five results, four are brief mentions and one is a government listing. As I have already pointed out twice, the CNET source is not secondary when it clearly is an app listing that states "by IndeJuice". SK2242 (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again for your further comment. In your previous comment you stated that you were unable to locate any coverage on the subject of the article whatsoever - "I’ve also checked for more sources twice and found nothing". In the same sentence, you again reiterated “Zero.” You are now stating that not only are there thousands of results in Google, which I agree, to some degree can be expected with a company regulated under so many highly protected governmental agencies, but that even in the extremely narrow Google News feature you were able to locate 5 more sources (that I have not cited) referencing the subject. With the entirety of your argument relying on SIGCOV, you have demonstrated the complete opposite of WP:GOODARG that clearly states that to form a valid argument for deletion you must “demonstrate that none can ever likely be found”. You have just found 5 sources after saying that you did not find any - “Zero” - or in the words of WP:POLICY, your objection is flawed as your “view cannot simultaneously be "A" and "not A” “. Not only this, but throughout each of your singular objections you have not once disputed the important arguments I have presented in support of the article under WP:GOODARG, WP:VERIFY, WP:SIGNIF, WP:NCORP, WP:COMPANY, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:MOS, WP:CS, WP:HASREFS, WP:Reliability, WP:NOTE or WP:PERPOLICY as there is simply nothing to object on any of those policy grounds. Each of these policies are of fundamental importance to the community and are core to “our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia” as explained in WP:POLICY. In light of this, I have not made a single argument without citing a corresponding WP policy. On the other hand, you have just refuted your own sole argument centred around SIGCOV in the inherent contradiction of your findings. I assure you that I understand and greatly respect your contribution, but you have presented a fundamentally flawed argument by undermining the logical validity of the very point you have attempted to present. At this stage, I believe it is safer to allow an admin to come to their own conclusion. GXM245 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What are the facts here? For an article to exist it should be notable. Notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Zero significant coverage in the article or on google. Mentions aren’t significant coverage. Primary listings aren’t significant coverage. Once again you don’t know what you are citing. This is my last reply to you because this is going round in circles. SK2242 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your final reply. I totally agree with the last sentence of your reply i.e. that this is now best placed for an admin as I had anticipated and suggested in both of my previous replies when the logical fallacies surrounding your singular argument became clear. Nevertheless, for the sake of completion, you have asked "What are the facts here?" It is a fact that you continue to hold two contradictory opinions for the sole premise upon which your singular argument is based and that you have entirely failed to address this. You have also provided no clarity on what appears to be your own interpretation of SIGCOV, that you have based your entire argument on, and the criteria for which seems to change with each reply rather than being based on a solid policy-led interpretation that I have provided by citing multiple WP polices directly addressing that exact concern. In this regard, you have again failed to show any problems or concerns surrounding my exclusively policy-based arguments in support of the subject. Your only comment seems to concede that the article should not be considered for A7/A9 speedy deletion, yet you continue to argue for its deletion in this debate. This indicates that you are unsure of your own opinion - a position that is only further supported by the logical contradictions in your findings of more reliable sources that you simultaneously claim you have found yet do not exist. I wish you all the best and thank you again for your participation in the debate. GXM245 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Garden-variety WP:CORPSPAM that fails WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Per GXM245's argument. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Superastig: Do you believe the sourcing is significant coverage? SK2242 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

SK2242, of course, I do. There's really nothing wrong with agreeing with GXM245's views. So, don't bother arguing with me. I'm not gonna waste my time in arguing with anyone who questions my views. My keep stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing, I am politely asking. Tone it down. SK2242 (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Just a recap for editors:
  Reference 1 (domains.google.com) - Company listing, not independent
  Reference 2 (find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk) - Company listing, not independent
  Reference 3 (trademarks.ipo.gov.uk) - Trademark listing, not independent
  Reference 4 (databox.com) - Brief mention in a promo content site, likely not independent and not significant coverage
  Reference 5 (download.cnet.com) - Not a CNET news article, but an application listing that contains a paragraph from IndeJuice themselves, not independent
  Reference 6 (ventsmagazine.com) - 2 short paragraphs in a news article about five different companies, independent but not significant coverage
  Reference 7 (register.fca.org.uk) - Company listing, not independent
  Reference 8 (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) - Company listing, not independent
  Reference 9 (gov.uk) - Company listing, not independent
  Reference 10 (gov.uk) - Company listing, not independent
  Additionally, no reliable independent sources providing significant coverage are found in several BEFORE searches. In conclusion, this is a definite failure of WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • SK2242, Well, I agree. The editors claiming otherwise have standards of reliability/notability that don't seem to match with the ones accepted by the community. Hopefully closing admin will remember WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - none of the sources provide significant, independent coverage. I reserve judgment on whether it meets the level of spam, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia either way. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Saying the article passes GNG is not enough as per the RfC at WP:N which refers explicitly to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organisations and companies. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. The Keep !voters above need to point to references that meet NCORP. q HighKing⁺⁺ 12:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete it's easy to find references with no significant coverage for subjects on the very fringes of notability. SK2242 clearly shows how none of the coverage actually establishes notability. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - there is no evidence that this passes NCORP ; no significant detail or focus on this company from sources that are truly independent Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Daniel (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Scottish Gliding Association

Scottish Gliding Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD was removed for unknown reasons. Non-notable association, I could not find any sources to meet WP:ORG. All the so-called notable clubs have redlinks and mainly the article seems to be WP:OR. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete No SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep It is a Scottish level club, covering the whole country. It deserves an article. And it does pass WP:SIGCOV, albeit quite slimly. scope_creep^Talk 21:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Significant coverage where? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - but it may need either merging with or better distinguishing from the Scottish Gliding Union. I've found and added a lot of references from the 1930s onwards to the founding of the Scottish Gliding Association. I'm sure it's notable. However - although initially it was called the Scottish Gliding Association, somewhere along the line, probably in the late 1930s, the name seems to have been changed to the Scottish Gliding Union. Pretty sure these are the same two organisations to begin with as the later accounts of the founding of the Union match the contemporary accounts of the founding of the Association. They also seem to share the same sites, at least some of the time. One or both of them is also referred to occasionally as the Scottish Gliding Club or the National Club, just to make things more confusing. However, we now have an article on each and they have separate websites - Scottish Gliding Centre, yet another name for the Scottish Gliding Union, and Scottish Gliding Association. Unless anyone in on this discussion can unpick what the difference is, I would suggest getting in touch with the two groups and asking if they can clarify their earlier relationship to each other. There is a book, The Scottish Gliding Union, A History: 1934-2008, which ought to help. I do not understand why the current version of the article refers to the SGA being formed in 1986, when newspaper coverage suggests it was already a fairly mature organisation. Possibly it was relaunched or separated off from the SGU at this time. Anyway - certainly notable from the coverage I've found and added, and I'm sure there is more out there in histories of gliding or biographies of some of the Scottish pioneers of gliding. Tacyarg (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment There will be reams of stuff on it. As it goes back to the 30's, it was likely they were involved World War 2 somehow. There would be no way that national organisation wouldn't be doing its bit. It needs the correct search. scope_creep^Talk 01:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I found newspaper references saying the Union (referred to as such at that point, rather than the Association) had closed down during the Second World War (I guess its airfield may have been requisitioned for war use). Some of its members were certainly involved in aviation in the war, but I didn't immediately find any notable names. After the war there is absolutely loads of activity recorded in the newspapers from the 1950s to 1980s - competitions, records being set, accidents, social activity, concerns about land use, provision of gliding holidays. I think at least one of the Association's founders may have been notable, though none have articles - I'm thinking of Major R A Salvesen, who must have been related to all the Salvesens on whom we do have articles (Edward, Christian, Theodore, Henry and Harold). Tacyarg (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Lyndsay Petruny

Lyndsay Petruny (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 declared paid article, for a relatively non-notable announcer. She paid for it herself, according to the declaration of COI. I fully understand why someone in this field might think a WP article would help their career, but that's not what we're here for. And the recognitions section does not seem to be encyclopedic content, DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Being a COI/declared paid article is not a valid reason for deletion; I agree that WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON and such seem to be questionable at best here, but the nomination's phrasing makes it sound like the main reason for the nomination is the COI. We absolutely shouldn't make it seem like we're punishing declared-paid-editors for having followed Wikipedia policy on disclosing paid editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

{U| The Bushranger}}, I do not automatically nominate every paid article for deletion. What I do, is look at as many as I can, and look with a degree of skepticism. The need for that skepticism is the very reason for requiring the notice. I think it appropriate to repeat that information here, in those cases where I do nominate. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a low level journalist no where close to meeting our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep DGG: Where did you see the COI posted? I checked the Talk page and userpage of the creator and didn't see it. The creator has been around since 2008 and page made in 2013. Aged editors are less likely to be paid editor. But regardless, like the other editor said whether its paid editor or not, the page must not be automatically declined and should be reviewed for notability and if need be it can be improved. You can use decline reason if it sounds like an "advertisement." However, IMO she meets WP:ENTERTAINER with having been host of several TV shows, so it should be kept, but improved if needed.Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Expertwikiguy, I'm surprised you missed it: The editor has indeed been here for a number of years, and according to their user page [[50]] they have been a declared paid editor since 2011. This particular article is in the section for 2013. (I will say, that the editor is reasonably competent, has done some unpaid work also. As always, the unpaid volunteer non-coi work is of a higher quality, especially because in most cases those who thoughtit necessary to pay for the articles had rather borderline notability and a lack of independent sourcing). They have tried to deflect scrutiny by making many of the paid articles in numbered sandboxes, which they have apparently used for a number of different articles--I think they may also be blanking and moving articles to repurpose them. This is why we need to absolutely require that all paid editing go through Draft space. They are also meeting the WMF terms of use, which considers that marking an article paid on the user page is sufficient (and those accommodates the usages of some WPs which are much more hospitable to paid work than enWP), , but are ignoring the current enWP WP:PAID requirements to declare it at the articles also.(and some of the article seem full or partial rather competent translations from those more hospitable WPs. The translation is not always be indicated, though I have not traced them all. Various of their articles have been deleted from time to time, a few taken to AfD and kept, but the overall pattern does not seem to have been noticed. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. Her only claim to fame is that she's a female sports anchor, which is still unusual in the field of football. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep: The article needs to be trimmed of trivia (i.e., the whole Recognitions section) but the subject arguably passes WP:ENTERTAINER: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Multiple and notable should be clear from the article; "significant roles" is more debatable but I think just barely passes. The 2004 Chicago/Midwest Emmy nominations also likely help (5 nomination programs she produced/executive produced, 1 nomination for her specifically): https://chicagoemmyonline.org/files/2014/09/2014-Emmy-Master-LIst.pdf Gnomingstuff (talk)
• Delete Seems run of the mill, not enough to warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The sources seem to past muster and a quick search shows various sources talking about her sports anchor career. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are not founded in policy because they do not identify reliable sources covering this topic. Sandstein 13:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1991–92

Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1991–92 (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, WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - there are articles on touring sides for each cricket season. I don't have access to news archives but there would almost certainly be coverage of Pakistan's tour of Australia at that time in national newspapers (there always is), so the claim of non-notability is simply not true. Another option which would be a valid alternative to deletion would be a merge or redirect to 1991–1992 Australian cricket season but that article currently doesn't exist. So as not to undo the good work of cricket editors here I see why this article can't be kept pending that being created. Again, another instance where deletion is a lazy option. Deus et lex (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Once again, I'll say what I said on other similar nominations. We have a complete series of articles on the official cricket tours, and because there is a complete series, readers (remember them?) can find their way around easily. What is the encyclopedic merit in seeking to destroy that? Johnlp (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. This was obviously not a tour but part of the World Cup; warm up matches can be dealt with in a sentence (or two if we're being extravagant) there. Any attempt to dress it up as a tour in the traditional sense is ludicrous. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Matches on this trip were organised around the CWC. Merge and redirect would be undue. Does not meet criteria for a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and other delete !voters. Users arguing to keep are making an WP:OSE argument. SK2242 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - how is this an "other stuff exists" argument? The suggestions are that the content is sourced and worth keeping but there are potential alternatives to deletion (which must be considered first). Deus et lex (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Adebukola Foluke Osunyikanmi

Adebukola Foluke Osunyikanmi (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 professor who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:PROF neither do they possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable independent of them thus this is a GNG fail as well Celestina007 (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment —@Celestina007:I made some improvement on the article and if you want to do trimming of your own, please feel free to do so as I am open to learning new thing on the platform. Meanwhile this article is backed up by several reliable sources, including articles from Vanguardngr, The Guardian, The Nation Newspaper and other notable sources. If you don't like certain parts of the article, then please feel free to remove them, if we get rid of every articule on the platform, how can we that is just getting use to the platform policy improve on our write up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacbabatundeo (talk • contribs) 10:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — The Comment above was made be the creator of the article @Isaacbabatundeo, who has now been blocked for using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Celestina007 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep tentatively. It's still under construction, and assuming we can verify the facts with good sources, she'd pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see anything notable in her career, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - couldn't find anything to meet WP criteria for a BLP page. Kolma8 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete My search in Google scholar found 14 citations for her most highly cited work and an h-index of 3, so it doesn't seem like her papers are significant. I also don't see the significant independent references to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Museologia Scientifica e Naturalistica

Museologia Scientifica e Naturalistica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minor scientific journal, no indication of notability given by either the article or WP:BEFORE (translating results); tagged for GNG failure since August 2010. Bringing to AfD rather than prodding, as (although the article claims the journal is English-language and this was borne out by at least some of the Google Scholar results) much of the surrounding information is in Italian, and it may need looking at by someone who speaks that. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the same reason the nominator didn't prod this, would prefer not to soft-delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Cannot find any indication of notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Vaticidalprophet. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} — Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

List of people with the Korean family name Moon

List of people with the Korean family name Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary list. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 00:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Category:Lists of people by name has about a thousand articles in it. No difference between this and so many others. Start a RFC if you want to get rid of all of them. Dream Focus 02:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename List of people with the Korean surname Moon to be consistent with other lists. INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply, and "unnecessary list" adds nothing by way of justification. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete this is the very definition of grouping people by shared name. Just because people have this last name does not mean they are overall related. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and our early days were a lawless wild with no regulation of content. Having been around a while is in no way a sign that something is actually notable nor that we need an article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Same as before Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_with_the_Korean_family_name_Kim. I don't see the argument here. This article has been here for a long time and lists of notable people are allowed WP:LISTPEOPLE. This one is no different from other list of surname articles like List of people with surname Smith (in fact we have entire category of such articles Category:Lists_of_people_sharing_a_surname. Evaders99 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Entirely standard practice to have articles listing people with the same surname, I see no rationale for why this one should be treated differently to e.g. List of people with surname Smith.----Pontificalibus 16:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Easter Posey

Easter Posey (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 SIGCOV. Being the first woman to die in an industrial accident during World War II doesn't make you notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete fails GNG as she lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. First U.S. woman to die in an industrial accident in WWII isn't even referenced. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. If she really was looked on as "the first American women to die in the line of duty in World War II", then we would have reliable sources that support this claim. We do not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Had she died in 1938, she's be a non-notable industrial accident victim. Nothing special about her life/career/death. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Sugababes#Merchandise. Daniel (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Tempt, Tease and Touch

Tempt, Tease and Touch (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 am uncertain if this meets the WP:GNG requirement, specifically the part on significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I expanded this article back in 2016 and it went through a successful GAN at that time, but I am uncertain if it is really notable anymore. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Sugababes#Merchandise. Article does not satisfy WP:GNG, fails WP:PRODUCT, and is a case of WP:PROMO. A review of the sources and the result is rather clear:
  • Refs 4, 7, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 26 are unreliable, non-secondary, promo sources. They are used to provide information regarding the perfume's ingredients, price, and merchandise stuff, which is WP:PROMO and WP:PRICE
  • Refs 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20 are not flagged as unreliable, but they are not independent, non-trivial sources, which fail WP:GNG criterion of independent sources (advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent)
  • The critical reception section is rather cherry-picking and puffery ("Easy Lifestyle" and Mirror are not generally reliable). Single-quotes from Glamour also do not help with substance.

— HĐ (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I actually closed this as delete but want to relist it for further eyes. To be perfectly honest I find HD's analysis of the sourcing to be persuasive. With this being a listed "Good Article", I would like a little bit more input personally before pulling the trigger. (Not that GA's get any special safety net, more I think unnecessary issues can be avoided by relisting in this particular case.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete -- while there are certainly celebrity perfumes that do receive significant news coverage this is not one of them. Did not find any additional sources. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - GA or not, this perfume does not appear to have recieved significant coverage. I fully agree with HD's analysis of the sources. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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 either delete or to merge. Encourage editors to start a merge discussion on the talk page if so desired. Daniel (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Kippax Centre

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

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

A run of the mill local shopping centre, without any notability. Also, the article is completely unsourced. (Note: The article was proposed for deletion by MB in March 2020, and the proposal was contested by The Drover's Wife.) JBW (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The PROD was disputed with the rationale that Kippax Centre is a populated place, not just the Kippax Fair shopping centre. The Canberra Times calls Kippax Centre a "precinct." Other sources call it a "designated group centre" of Canberra that includes the shopping centre.[51] Not familiar enough with Australian geography to judge. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Manuka and Dickson Centre are also "designated group centres" and could be characterised as precincts. Manuka definitely has an historical importance in addition to being a shopping centre (and has a famous sports ground and a designated cathedral), Dickson somewhat less so and Kippax Centre less so again.--Grahame (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• comment I cannot see how being a "designated group centre" is important given that essentially all the GHits for the phrase (and there aren't many) are statements that one of a small number of places are so designated. In particular I don't get a definition for it, so I'm hard-pressed to see how it matters. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Pontificalibus (or if not, Merge) - given that alternatives to deletion must be considered first, an obvious outcome if there is no consensus to keep is a merge to Holt, Australian Capital Territory. There seem to be quite a few media articles on the shopping centre just from doing a simple Google search (let alone any book or other media which almost certainly exists on local ACT history that would presumably cover it) this probably does meet GNG, but even if it doesn't in its own right there is clearly no valid reason for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Do Not Merge or Redirect The article is about a shopping center. The hurdle is WP:NBUILD I do not see anything in the article, nor does a search find anything that meets that. Arguments about "populated places" must pass WP:GEOLAND and I don't see anything that passes that. Jeepday (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Jeepday:, none of your arguments show that merging or redirection is not an inappropriate alternative. There are Google hits that at least mean it is worth a mention in the suburb article (given that Kippax Centre, like Manuka and Dickson Centre, are localities in their own right within Canberra) - and that's without searching for offline sources, of which there must be at least some that cover this particular area's history as part of the history of suburban Canberra, and alternatives MUST be considered before deletion. A merge or redirect is entirely appropriate here, and will avoid the work done on the article just being wasted. Deus et lex (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment there is nothing in WP:ATD-M that says anything MUST be merged. If you want to try and add it to the article you are welcome to, but trying to get an AFD ruling that it must be merged is without grounds. Jeepday (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Comment - you don't understand and you need to learn the rules of AfD - you can only consider delete when merge and redirect are inappropriate. If you can't justify why a merge or redirect is inappropriate then it shouldn't get deleted. There is a clear merge here - the claim it is "without grounds" is rubbish. Deus et lex (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:GNG with [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. etc ----Pontificalibus 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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.