Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 1

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< May 31 June 02 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adivaram edit

Adivaram (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) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Tear from the Red. Really like the idea of redirecting as an WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Botchla edit

Botchla (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 pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Most references are trivial, unrelated to the song itself, or appear to be original research from primary sources. Notability is not inherited from the band or from the album, both of which may be notable. This song does not appear to be. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic Team edit

Drastic Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient sources that go in depth on the subject. Doesn't currently appear to pass WP:GNG. [1][2]. These sources might count toward GNG, but I'd like to see more before I declare this a GNG pass. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm the article creator, i had to remove a big portion of the page because it was considered copyright infringement but it wasn't considered that the page that i copied was of my own website (laboratoryleak.com). If you remove the violation i can put back the sources that go in depth on the subject. Thank you. --Francesco espo (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. At the time of the copyright violation, I checked all the sources in the article and didn't see any sources not currently listed. Feel free to provide links to sources here though and we'll take a look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have five sources for this stub as it currently exists. Three of them (the Washington Post, the Telegraph and CNET) are solidly reliable sources per WP:RSP. These three sources have a good deal of information about the subject and constitute WP:SIGCOV; additionally, the group is the sole focus of the entire CNET article (which was written by a CNET staff editor). These look like they easily establish notability on their own; I'm sure that I could also dig into RSN archives and figure out what the consensus is on Unherd and Skynews (I'm not familiar with these publications so I don't have an opinion on them). The article may be short, but there's more than enough information in the sources to flesh something longer out if anyone were so inclined. jp×g 06:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 per WP:MEDPOP, the popular press are often not reliable for scientific claims. As for the CNET piece, it is lovlingly PROFRINGE. As for RSP, the last discussion on the reliability of CNET was 6 years ago, and it states that CNET is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles., not reliable in general, and lab-leak claims fall well outside CNET's wheelhouse in consumer electronics, and the coverage has not been mirrored by other more reputable news sources. As for the other articles, they are incidental mentions and do not consitute SIGCOV. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alina Chan (who wrote the Telegraph article describing them as a group of diligent online sleuths) is a molecular biology postdoctoral researcher with a specialty in cell engineering, who seems to have a substantial number of publications specifically about COVID-19. Obviously, an article published by a long-running reliable news outlet doesn't clear WP:MEDRS simply because it was written by an expert in the field and subjected to the same editorial oversight we trust for all other articles, but I'm not aware of any MEDRS claims being made in this article; it's related to the biomedical subject of COVID-19 in the same way that the death of Socrates was related to the biomedical subject of acute hemlock toxicity. jp×g 17:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: I don't know how being a postdoctoral researcher is supposed to impress me, it's not really at the level we would expect for the "subject matter expert". Alina Chan is very active in pro "lab leak" twitter and is strongly associated with "Drastic" and other prominent "lab leak twitter" figures like Yuri Deigin, so her writing can't be described as an independent source on the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: Apologies, I am a little confused by this message. On which matter? jp×g 19:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per previously expressed concerns about a (now disclosed) COI and per Hemiauchenia's analysis. The only other (passing) mention of this group I could find is here, where the sum total of coverage about this group is the following sentence: "For instance, a neuroscientist belonging to a group that claims to independently investigate COVID-19 tweeted that the letter is a diluted version of ideas his group posted online last year." Obvious GNG fail. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEDRS is not a notability guideline, so I do not understand how it is relevant for determining notability. As far as I can tell, its relevance to the content at all is tenuous at best, since the article doesn't make any scientific claims whatsoever, nor does it take a position on the "lab leak" being true or false. jp×g 17:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in the whole of my comment did I mention MEDRS? Please point it out to me so I can correct it, since I've just done a sanity check but the only bit I see is GNG, which has no relation to MEDRS as far as I know. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEDPOP is a subsection of WP:MEDRS. jp×g 19:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And where do I mention that? I was referencing Hemiauchenia' analysis of this not meeting SIGCOV, entirely independent of MEDRS, as should be clear from the rest of my comment where I do not mention that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an extremely long article -- a feature, in fact -- focusing entirely on this group, from CNET, a website cited in approximately ten thousand articles. There are 16 discussions in the history of RSN where CNET is mentioned; in zero of them was it found to be unreliable for anything. Is there a reason that an article there does not count? jp×g 19:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG has always required multiple sources. CNET here is only one, and it's dubious for something that is so far out of its usual coverage (they don't usually cover controversies and minority theories in biomedical affairs, nor do they appear to cover politics when it's not related to technological matters). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have an opinion on the 20 Minutes piece? It, too, is focused entirely on the group. The site is referenced in over 9000! articles on fr.wiki and 875 here; the author, Manon Aublanc, is an auteur du personnel (per her byline, she rejoindre la rédaction de 20 Minutes and was embauchée au service des infos in 2017). jp×g 21:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've expanded the article substantially with information from its sources, and located an additional one with SIGCOV (although it's in French, and I'm not very familiar with the publication). Every sentence is cited to its source, and all statements are provided with inline attribution (with a few exceptions, like "they are primarily organized on Twitter", which are obviously uncontroversial and all sources say the same thing). It should be noted that this was pretty easy to do without saying anything that fell under WP:BIOMED, or anything that could be construed as falling under WP:BIOMED; there are no statements or implications about the origin of COVID-19, the likelihood of Drastic's hypotheses being true, the validity of their evidence, whether or not they are bozos, et cetera. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to find sources which opine more authoritatively on these issues, and incorporate them into the article, but GNG doesn't require it. jp×g 19:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Hemiauchenia sums up the issues with the article, and in any case I'm sceptical that it meets WP:NORG (which is the standard required for organisations like these, not GNG). For example: The non-substantial mention in WAPO is an opinion piece, not usable for organisation notability. Per RSP, CNET is generally reliable for technology-related articles -- medicine is way outside their specialty. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Hemiauchenia (both the WaPo and the Telegraph items are opinion pieces, and we've no reason to consider CNET reliable for the subject) and the WP:NORG concern raised by ProcrastinatingReader. XOR'easter (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update Even after expansion, WP:NORG doesn't seem to be satisfied, the WP:MEDPOP concerns remain, and there's no real indication why this group needs an article rather than being described as part of the story of which they are a part. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 per WP:MEDPOP. Sonofstar (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because a simple "Redirect" will destroy the content. The investigative and partly anoymous scientists had (as far as I can estimate) a big impact concerning the demand of independent scientific investigation of the origin, which is advocated today by many states. In many countries also in Germany, etc. they were the central source of large articles for instance in the serious Neue Züricher Zeitung - globally over 275,000 google hits.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the start of the AfD (and, indeed, after most of this discussion occurred) there have been new articles primarily focusing on the exploits of this group in The Hindu (RSP entry) ("generally reliable"), Vanity Fair (RSP entry) ("generally reliable"), The Print (no RSP entry, I don't know), and Newsweek (RSP entry) ("case-by-case basis"). jp×g 04:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: redirecting it will mean a soft delete of this article because a significant portion of it or the entire content will be lost. Kaspadoo (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Another head scratcher here, this is relevant, notable and well sourced- the additions made by @JPxG: make a huge difference. This is one of those instances where more information is better than less, and this group has played a notable role in our current discourse....Wikipedia should absolutely be a resource for learning more about this group and their actions. Thank you all! CatDamon 19:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the added Vanity Fair article and other recent additions, clearly passes GNG. Zoozaz1 talk 23:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not redirect anywhere unless content about the group is available there (a reverse WP:MERGEWHAT). I almost brought this to WP:RFD over that before, and if you just leave it that way, I'm sure it will end up there again. Redirection is not a polite delete—you would be leaving behind a search term that will mislead, confuse, and/or disappoint readers. If your concern is with recreation of the article, we have a process for that, and it's not "effectively create an easter egg via redirection".
If there's consensus that the group should be mentioned, by all means, redirect there. Just please don't kick the can down the road. (Ping me if needed; not watching this page.) --BDD (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The group passes WP:GNG. The group has received in-depth coverage from the sources listed above, as well as El País. There's a risk of WP:NOTNEWS, but I am not moved by it owing to the length of time corresponding to their coverage. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sources and notable team of scientists. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Putting aside any critique of the group, and simply focusing on notability, it is obvious to me this easily meets WP:GNG on the basis of multiple, reliable sources such as Vanity Fair and The Hindu. Ifnord (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy-delete (A7, G11) . (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian News Network edit

Asian News Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly not notable, since I can't find any non-self-published sources on this outlet. The website link does not seem to work, however, I wouldn't tag this as a blatant hoax because there seem to be a few social media pages (albeit with very little traffic). Aspening (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, written like an advert, non-notable (I can't reach website either as Norton 360 blocks it to me as dangerous!) JW 1961 Talk 21:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per A7 and G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy-delete (G3). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caspersitooo edit

Caspersitooo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline G11, and I can't find any non-self published sources about this person. Aspening (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Aspening (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As a hoax, a quick search pulls up absolutely nothing in terms of RS and he sure as hell didn't win anything at the 2020 Billboard Music Awards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per GPL93's search JW 1961 Talk 21:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Kilian edit

Jennifer Kilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP. Only references are to her own works. Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Since no reliable secondary sources were presented to support the !keep I'm going with User:HighKing's rationale. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TutorMe edit

TutorMe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Full of promotional content, and only news sources that I can find are paid press releases from newswire. Fails WP:NWEB. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem fit for deletion when there are reliable sources throughout stating that they provide free education and it is linked next to existing pages in the same category. It should be revised to remove any impartiality, which it would appear myself and another impartial editor who reviewed it were doing/did to resolve existing issues and also the external link should be removed to further improve this page.WikiWonderWiki (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of reliable, secondary sources included in the article that discuss the company as the primary subject of the articles. If there are WP:NPOV issues, those can be edited. But this article is nowhere near WP:TNT. Angryapathy (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only find 3 reliable sources, among the mess of "company listings", bloggy style news outlets and sources of questionable reliability, so I would appreciate if you could link some of these sources that you found. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or 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. HighKing++ 19:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7 by Fastily. ✗plicit 07:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumeet Patil edit

Sumeet Patil (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 qualify WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. I had PROD it. But observed such a neat trick. A user moved it to draft space. This naturally made another user remove the PROD since it was in draft space. And once PROD was removed, the initial user got it back to mainspace! Amazed! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously not notable. Aspening (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable art director, does not meet WP:NCREATIVE--Whiteguru (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My due diligence did not present any sourcing, aside from the one feature about him teaching people to paint, that shows this subject meets WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR. Missvain (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this was deleted G7 on 07:45, 7 June 2021.... Jeepday (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courtesy delete based on the feedback from experienced editors. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Pally edit

Marcia Pally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination on behalf of the article subject, who is invoking WP:BLPDELETE on the claim of being a non-notable individual. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the sources in the article, I believe the subject of the article more than passes the threshold for inclusion according to WP standards. Angryapathy (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article has been hijacked by one or more editors who have used it to post misleading, disparaging, and poorly sourced information about the subject. This harassment has extended across a period of well over a year and has corresponded to a real-life pattern of harassment occurring across the same time period. It seems very likely that the offending edits to the article have been made by the real-life harasser, and that he has been using multiple screen names to do so, in violation of Wikipedia policy on "sockpuppeting". One strongly suspects that 'Angryapathy', who on this page argues for the article’s preservation, is yet another alias for this same offender. Moreover, the fact that he posted a comment on this page less than three hours after the deletion notice was posted strongly suggests that he watches this article closely and is personally invested in its preservation and content, in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. The subject herself has appealed to Wikipdeia for the deletion of this article, to relieve her of this ongoing harassment. It should be removed immediately.Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you read Wikipedia's article on assuming good faith. Angryapathy (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One assumes good faith, initially, in the absence of reason to assume otherwise. As indicated in my comment above, there is abundant reason to override that initial assumption in this case. In any event, whoever the person or persons might be behind all the screen names, the article has been edited in an factually inaccurate, contentious and harassing manner and should be deleted. I note again, for whoever is the referee of this discussion, that Angryapathy responded to my comment within 24 minutes of its posting. He obviously has a personal interest in this article. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat off-topic discussion about page watchers
  • Just in regard to that last comment - there are a number of people who have the page watchlisted and are thus aware of this discussion being opened; commenting on an AFD (in and of itself) within any time frame should not be viewed as any sort of agenda or COI. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Primefac. But that goes to the whole point of the subject being a low-profile person. It is highly peculiar that the page of a mostly non-public and entirely non-controversial person should be watched so closely. I have it watchlisted as a friend and advocate for the subject, solely for the purpose of engaging in this deletion discussion. It is not at all clear why others would be so interested in this low-profile individual's article as to watchlist it. I respectfully suggest that it may be appropriate to infer ulterior motives. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, have this page watchlisted, mostly due to past disruptions. There are some pages I watch where I am one of two editors, and there are pages I watch where I am one of thousands of page watchers. From an editorial perspective, I watch pages when I think there is reason to, either because it is a new page and I want to see it grow, or a page with a problematic past and I want to ensure future changes are productive. In other words, I find nothing peculiar about any one editor watching any one page. Also for what it's worth, I'm happy to carry on this conversation, I'm just collapsing it because it is off-topic to the AFD as a whole. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The mildly amusing part of this discussion (which has thankfully been collapsed) is that Aaabbbyyyzzz obviously does not know that every edit made by a user is logged. Anyone can freely see that I've never edited this page or any page related to it. Aaabbbyyyzzz is implying that I started an account over a decade ago, edited Wikipedia off and on since then, created dozens of articles, all for the purpose of one day lodging a neutral-worded keep vote at this AfD. Angryapathy (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Angryapathy" has never edited the article, but I wonder who "Angryapathy" actually is, and whether it's the same person who edits as "PaulKovnick" and/or "AlexaVamos". The anonymity of Wikipedia is really pernicious and is the fundamental condition that allows such harassment to occur.Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your editing history, you created an account on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of getting this article deleted. You obviously have not been able to read through the many policies and guidelines we have regarding editing on Wikipedia. But assuming good faith is important. Please don't make allegations that I am a sockpuppet with the only proof is that I happened to check the Articles for Deletion page soon after this article was nominated, and that I happen to be responding quickly. Just because someone disagrees with you (at "suspicious times") does not mean they are part of a conspiracy to defame the subject of the article. Angryapathy (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the account was created at the beginning of May 2021 in order to contact editors about this article (primarily me). Primefac (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Angryapathy" makes valid points in his/her comment of 18:52 UTC. It is impossible to know who is who in this shady anonymous world of Wikipedia. As I noted above, anonymity creates an environment that enables harassment without accountability. And it also creates an environment in which I may have misidentified an innocent editor as the troll. I am neither coceding nor apologizing, but rather calling out the pernicious nature of anonymity. Not only does it eliminate all accountability, it makes it impossible to police behavior. If the parties involved in this article were identified as real people, then their relationships, interests, motives and conflicts of interest would be readily visible. Such visibility would likely prevent inappropriate behavior in the first place. Responsible people behaving within the community's norms should not require anonymity.Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what I would consider the absolute worst apology in the history of apologies. Angryapathy (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't flatter yourself: as I specifically said, I was not apologizing. I was being intellectually honest by acknowledging that I do not conclusively know your identity, and that culpability cannot be conclusively inferred from the actions that I consider suspect. However, I still do consider them suspect and have strong suspicions that you are who I think you are, which you notably have not denied. My larger point, which I made at some length, is that anonymity is a big problem. Indeed, if you are who I think you are (and if you're not, let's call this a hypothetical), the anonymity of the W. world has enabled you to behave badly and then equally enabled you to cite W. policy in your defense. W policy, which, contrary to your assertion abvove, I have reviewed extensively, and whose lack of enforcement I decry. Again, not an apology. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that the world has been so cruel to you that you assume I am this mystery person who is tormenting you. I don't know who you think I might be, but I can guarantee you that I am not that person. And if others vote to keep this article, may I kindly suggest that you disregard your gut reaction that anyone disagreeing with you is part of a conspiracy. And you may think you are a strong person for not admitting you are wrong, but trust me, it is the ultimate sign of weakness. Angryapathy (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angryapathy: Your psychoanaylsis is misplaced. This is not a matter my feelings; it is not personal matter of any kind. It is an effort to correct the record, in which misinformation has caused harm to the subject of the article. Someone has been posting incorrect and disparaging information, presumably with a personal agenda. In the real world, we know exactly who this person is. In Wikipedia's anonymous hall of mirrors, it is impossible to know which one -- or two, or ten -- of the contributors is/are that person. I have acknowledged that you may not be that person, though I have reason to suspect that you are, and you have not denied that you are. It's not a matter of personal posturing, it's a question of fact. I have no wish to falsely accuse anyone of anything, as I would not wish to be falsely accused. But I do wish for the troll to be exposed and shut down. All this anonymity makes this effort nearly impossible.Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per article subject's request. Furius (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: something’s not right about this article: (a) evidence of COI, (b) too much evidence about a living person from 35 and 40 years ago with no updating, (c) evidence that appears within the last 20 years relies on evidence twice as old, (d) obscure evidence looks like someone spent a lot of time drudging up sexual material, inappropriate for a low-profile Wikipedia biography, in a confused homophobic attempt to defame, etc. The Talk page for this article shows an editing war and attempt to control the page by “PaulKovnick,” “AlexaVamos” and others. Overall, material not reliable for Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosyoua1b2c3 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC) — Whosyoua1b2c3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Per article subject's request and WP:TNT. Beccaynr (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject’s work in regard to HIV/AIDS, her leadership positions in three national organizations (GLAAD, Feminists for Free Expression, ACLU) and her work as a prominent journalist, film critic, and political, social and cultural critic in the U.S. and Germany certainly pass the Wikipedia threshold for inclusion. The subject also meets the criterion of being “part of the enduring historical record in a specific field” for her work in GLAAD and FFE, and maybe the criterion of being nominated for well-known awards (Grawemeyer Award, H.L. Mencken Award (https://menckenawards.blogspot.com/2019/11/normal.html)) and the selection of one of her books by the U.N. Committee on Education for Justice. I am surprised this issue is being discussed and that the subject seems

to have initiated this.

The subject is a “public figure” and influencer. In addition to leadership roles in three national civil society organizations and other public institutions, the subject co-hosted a television series (albeit long ago), co-hosted a weekly radio program for several years, was a contributing editor of an internationally circulated magazine, addressed the World Economic Forum, and the vast majority of her publications have been in popular newspapers and magazines in the U.S. and Germany and more recently on the internet. It is her prominence in civil society as a public intellectual that makes her an appropriate subject for WP, not her academic career. But that also means that the subject has a limited right to privacy and almost no right to privacy in regard to her public life. That raises the question of whether she can ask to control her WP entry, request its deletion or object to information of general public interest that comes from second-party sources like books and newspapers, or from her own publications and public appearances.
It should also be noted that the subject seems to have been editing the page under at least four different names or proxies (Margarethell, pinkpostitzyxcb, Alisdairxing3153!, JmtAU2017), as well as under her own name, and appears to be posting on this talk as Aaabbbyyyzzz.
From her comments here and the editing by the subject or her proxies over the years, it seems that the subject may think that WP is a PR outlet and that she can control its content. As an admirer of her work and career, I find this very disturbing. WP is not a personal website or a platform for a public figure’s publicist or PR firm.AlexaVamos (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC) — AlexaVamos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Alexa: I am not the subject of the article. I am her friend and advocate, as noted above. Given the patent absurdity of all these parties arguing over who is or might be whom, I note again the absurd and deleterious effects of all this anonymity. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, and I agree that anonymity has a clear downside. I don't know what would be the best approach, but I think eliminating it might have a chilling effect on WP that could do more harm than good.AlexaVamos (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, while I understand the distress that this business may be causing, it would be a travesty for the subject not to be in WP. As her friend, you must know that there is no serious study of HIV/AIDs activism or the gay rights movement that doesn't mention Vito Russo, and there is probably no book or documentary about Russo that doesn't mention Marcia Pally. I pulled Michael Schiavi's definitive biography of Russo, Celluloid Activist (2011), off my shelf and her collaboration with Russo is mentioned at least half a dozen times. I don't understand how anyone can say that a central figure in the gay rights movement is not notable.AlexaVamos (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at subject's request. Notability is barely marginal. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE request and the borderline notability of the subject. In addition, it is clear from the history there has been a long-term edit war with similarly-behaving single-purpose accounts on two sides, with one side pushing to include material on Pally's personal life, supposed early history and early work (users: Mo wie, Millieprendergast, PaulKovnick, AlexaVamos, AvAdv, Pinkpostitzyxcba, Dreifoos) and the other side disputing the accuracy of this material, removing it, and pushing to focus the article primarily on Pally's academic career (users: 141.20.190.194, Marciapally, Pinkpostitzyx, MargaretheII). The added material does not contribute to notability in any way and appears to violate WP:BLPPRIVACY, so I am inclined to take the allegations of a concerted campaign of sockpuppet harassment seriously (although this does not excuse possible sockpuppetry in reaction to this perceived sockpuppetry). We should not let the allegations by one camp of sockpuppetry from the other camp distract us from the main issues of privacy and notability that we are here to determine, we should not be providing a platform for such harassment, and BLPDELETE is exactly the right mechanism to cut it off. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per article subject's request. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Gyeongchang edit

Princess Gyeongchang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject's notability completely relies on her relation to other people. As we all know, notability is not inherited. WP is also not a genealogy site. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This article was also moved out of draft space by the creator over another editor's objection. Kbabej (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks abundantly notable as a royal consort with an entry in the professionally edited Encyclopedia of Korean Culture ([3]) and another in a recent biographical dictionary of Korean women 한국여성인물사전, excerpted here. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She was emphasizing documented in reliable sources by historians because of her historical significance. A daughter of Duke does not make her notable automatically, but just to reiterate: this woman was the queen consort of the ruler of a major historical kingdom which makes her a high-ranking member of the Royal Court of Goryeo. Goryeo dynasty's political system was absolute monarchy so clearly passes WP:NPOL. I don't see how WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Her position is very high and important enough in the harem hierarchy for her to stay, but her and many other similar articles are nonetheless problematic, because they are very thin on personal information: they consists of names, dates, titles and genealogy, but no personal information. What was she like as a person, did she participate in any known political act, plot, conflict, memorable event? What was her relationship like to other influential people at court, her sympathies, enemies and views? As the article stands now, she appear to be a blank sheat of a person, so it's no wonder the article is nominated; she appears to be just a genealogical footnote. The article really should be developed and expanded with more personal information which confirms her relevance, otherwise a nomination would always appear reasonable even if I don't support it. VocalIndia (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how you believe NPOL applies here? The subject doesn't fit any of that criteria. In an absolute monarchy, the ruler would have the power and she would have none, save for perhaps her household. --Kbabej (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She was a high ranking member of the royal court, as VocalIndia explained above. I imagine she had at least as much influence as various historical British Lords who may have never even been introduced at Westminster. pburka (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a lot of speculation, considering no RS state that. I could just as easily assume she had none. --Kbabej (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could. That leaves only the strong GNG argument from Nizolan. pburka (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add, the scholarly sources I linked do in fact state the role she played in the politics of the time so there's no need to speculate about this based on her title. She was seen as an opponent of the king who succeeded her husband, accused of plotting to install her son on the throne, consequently reduced to commoner status and deposed in 1277. Some rather brief details are also available in English in Henthorn, Korea: The Mongol Invasions (1963) here (notes 28 and 30). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify my analogy further, we presume that Lords are notable simply for inheriting a title, even if there's no evidence that they ever voted or debated at Westminster, and we know from historical records that many didn't. I don't think it's a stretch to afford at least the same presumption of notability to royal consorts, whom we know attended court. pburka (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP In Imperial Ranks, Duke was a nobles and has a high ranks, so i think everyone who came from Duke's family such as Princess Gyeongchang who was Duke's daughter might be came from a nobles family and also, she become a Goryeo King's consort and that was not just a lowly concubine like a palace maid.....so i hope that you wanna think again if you wanna delete Princess Gyeongchang's article...Please don't and never equated the past's ranks and now era's ranks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningsih ODINN (talk • contribs)
  • Keep hum? really? According to old Korean political system, the queen stay at superme highest level. Per above, yes Goryeo dynasty's was absolute monarchy, at that time the King and Queen were equivalent to god and goddess. It means she has authority to rule and to do everything and she can kill anyone she want. She appears as a significant player in numerous histories of the Korean kingdom's game of thrones and so is clearly notable. As with many figures from antiquity, the information we have is limited but it has endured for millenia and so is very WP:LASTING. Taung Tan (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and agree per VocalIndia and Nizolan. Almost all Korean queens have had considerable power; such queens have sometimes been referred as the "power behind the throne". Unlike other queens from other parts of the world, queens of Korea had played major roles in the political affairs and cases of succession to the throne. And thus, it meets NPOL. Also, it has reliable sources mentioned by Nizolan and passes GNG. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Royal consort with perfectly acceptable sourcing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nizolan. Heart (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per above, Royal consort. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Don't we have an article about Rachel Meghan Markle ? Pldx1 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand I am convinced by the sources provided by Nizolan that this person is sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone article, but VocalIndia is spot on in saying that her and many other similar articles are nonetheless problematic, because they are very thin on personal information: they consists of names, dates, titles and genealogy, but no personal information [...] she appears to be just a genealogical footnote. When all we have is basically a glorified genealogical entry, we might as well merge or redirect to some related article (such as their title or parent/sibling/spouse/offspring). I would expand it myself using the aforementioned sources, if not for the fact that the machine translation from Korean I got was absolutely atrocious. TompaDompa (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Laura Daniels edit

Alexis Laura Daniels (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 entertainer, no in depth coverage in reliable sources and nothing remarkable that would qualify under our N criteria. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ARoseWolf 17:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to find enough sources to justify inclusion on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I am new to this community and I guess we all have to start from somewhere. If you could kindly inform me about how many sources would be enough to justify it's inclusion on WP, I would kindly oblige and present them. This is a new article we are looking to improve over time so kindly bear with us. Mayorbiney
    It's not about the number of sources, but the quality of them. I am extremely doubtful that there exists the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that is required to justify an article. firefly ( t · c ) 11:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mayorbiney, a subject should be notable from the outset and sources should be provided when creating an article that will, at a minimum, pass the basic notability guidelines for inclusion. AfD is not for article clean-up. AfD is to determine whether there is a community consensus the subject meets the requirements mentioned above by Firefly. We conduct a WP:BEFORE search for reliable sources to verify notability which is what Firefly is referencing below. Please do not take anything said here personal against you. Editors are !voting based on what they determine when looking at the article themselves. --ARoseWolf 13:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mayorbiney, please do supply the sources that you have. It is ok if they are not in English or if they are not online, but they do need to conform to the guidelines laid out by firefly, i.e. significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Furius (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I likewise cannot find any significant coverage of this person. Mentions on a student blog do not count unfortunately. firefly ( t · c ) 11:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This read like a promotional piece. Mayorbiney, if you are new to this community, please accept this as a learning experience and consider the decent advice offered above. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Subject may be notable some day, but not yet.Rogermx (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast Mode edit

The Fast Mode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

other than some rather brief press releases, I can't find any in depth coverage of this publication and most hits are for the generic term. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The given references are listings and brief mention in a co-authored report press release all of which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are not finding the coverage about the firm needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no academic rating for the magazine so it validity is in doubt. If that could be supplied then it might be worth something but at the moment it must fail WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 13:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpna Singh-Chitnis edit

Kalpna Singh-Chitnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see how this meets WP:NACTOR, WP:POET, or given the references WP:GNG even. Also the external links are just spam - RichT|C|E-Mail 11:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - RichT|C|E-Mail 11:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. - RichT|C|E-Mail 11:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as said by the nomination. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a few hits on Google Scholar, but at least one (International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature) looks like it might be a predatory journal. pburka (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find anything through Google, Jstor, or other sourcing that shows me this subject merits inclusion via WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR. Missvain (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Quill, Putney edit

The Quill, Putney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 13:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The place is notable – a coaching inn dating back to 1854. Details of the original construction appear in The Reporter and The Jurist and there is naturally further documention in more recent sources such as The Fascination of London and Putney & Roehampton Through Time. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see enough independent, reliable sources that discuss this pub. While it may be old, it does not meet WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ITSOLD is not a valid argument. Two sources in article are pub databases, not significant coverage, one does not even mention this pub, and one is mere passing mention. The above Jurist link is a primary source about a legal case, not significant coverage. Reywas92Talk 20:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per above, Two sources in article are pub databases, . No notable coverage. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystera edit

Mystera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has already been PRODded in 2011, with the dePROD rationale on the talk page being "As it is merely a list of tracks it is difficult to site anything other than the CD's themselves. The page is accurate and I have found it very useful", which I don't think is a good reason to keep an unsourced article. I was unable to find any sources other than one review for 'The Best Of Mystera' from MusikWoche here. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Patel edit

Kevin Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student activist fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 18:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Sources in the article meet the GNG and the nom hasn't given any reason to discount them. The Men's Health and LA Times articles, for example, seem great. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 11:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's sufficient independent reliable sources with significant coverage to meet GNG
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Voyage LA ~ Interview Yes Yes ~ Partial
The Renewal Project ~ Interview ? Sponsored content Yes ? Unknown
GreenBiz Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Vox Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Men's Health Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
LA Times Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
In the Know (same as the Yahoo Finance link) Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Datebook/SF Chronicle Yes Yes No passing mention ✘ No
Times Standard Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Error: a source must be specified ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Clearly enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Just some caveats. The Times-Standard source is only a passing mention and the profile in GreenBiz doesn't really count as coverage. But everything else checks out. — BriefEdits (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hobit and Qwaiiplayer's extensive assessment above. The article could certainly be improved. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 13:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We should keep this article and just delete the things that are not good. Don't delete the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverSideSong (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can someone explain why this article is up for deletion? I don't see any issues on my end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gildsons (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article doesn't raise any red flags for me and is constant with other articles for youth climate activists, including Sophia Kianni and Kevin Mtai. There are some improvements to be made, but don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sim-Marcel-Bilal (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WOW!! this is the most active I have seen Wikipedia in a while. Who is Kevin Patel? I just reviewed, this article is actually solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.46.252 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep kevin's a youth climate activist. The activity this is generating is sus, is it a race issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sim-Marcel-Bilal (talk • contribs) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's not lie, we all know Wikipedia is racist. Kevin is just SOL at this point. Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.46.252 (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely a little biased but can be cleaned up a little bit. Keep. Kylerschin (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the source assessment -- youth climate activists are covered in different ways than our typical "biography" pipeline, so the "activist" angle is something we need to keep an eye on, but that doesn't mean the articles are non-notable. Sadads (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, disregarding the extremely obvious brigading, Patel has received significant coverage in Vox and the LA Times, meaning that he passes GNG. Some of the other sources marked as green in the table above seem to be little more than passing mentions however. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Qwaiiplayer's list shows that it passes WP:GNG. Article definitely could be cleaned up though. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No major faults found in the article, can be fixed by editing.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Hetherton-Miau edit

Madeleine Hetherton-Miau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo/vanity piece by COI editor on a non-notable filmmaker. The refbombing consists mostly of coverage of her company or their productions, not of herself, plus a few short bios clearly supplied by the subject or someone close to her; virtually all are primary, and none are RS or provide anything even resembling significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO / WP:FILMMAKER. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly she is very productive, but, the sourcing, and my own due diligence via the web doesn't present anything that convinces me this subject passes WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 11:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A lot of the references are about her work or her company, not about her. I liked the first two references. Alack, its a deltree. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "merge" proponents have not responded to the concerns that there is nothing useful to merge. Sandstein 06:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing the dragon in popular culture edit

Chasing the dragon in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pop culture trivia, with the majority of the article being song lyrics that reference it. The article doesn't explain how 'chasing the dragon' has a cultural impact, and is instead a list of largely uncited trivia, consisting mostly of passing mentions. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I certainly think the main Chasing the dragon article could stand to be expanded with sourced information discussing its presence in popular culture, I agree with Nizolan in the fact there doesn't appear to actually be any content here that would be appropriate to merge there. The only bit of information here that is actually based on a reliable, secondary source is in the intro paragraph explaining the concept of "chasing the dragon" itself, and that information is already included in the main article on the topic. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Policy is that sourcing need not be in English for it to count towards notability or verifiability, and arguments based on the sources being in Bulgarian have been given less weight. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Toromanova-Hmelik edit

Maria Toromanova-Hmelik (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 can't find any significant coverage about her. Urartuvanking (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Urartuvanking (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Urartuvanking (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete would have redirected to the film but that doesn't exist on WP. Unverifiable, unsourced, no current search. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Played a significant role in a notable film and several in theatre. The online sources are all pretty rubbish, but the offline source is an entry in the Encyclopedia of Bulgarian Theatre - the fact that she has an entry there tends to indicate notability imo. Furius (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In addition to what Furius said, I strongly believe offline and non-English language sources are going to be where this subject establishes herself in meeting WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. This academic book, Bulgarian 20th Century in the Arts and Culture calls the subject a "prominent theatre actress". However, I did not find anything else about her, anywhere, outside of that - even searching "Мария Николова Тороманова-Хмелик". Therefore I'm not convinced she passes WP:NACTOR for inclusion in English Wikipedia. Even the Bulgarian Wikipedia article is poorly sourced. I'd be happy to see it drafted if folks think sourcing will magically appear in the next six months. Missvain (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seareching for "Мария Николова Тороманова-Хмелик" comes up with almost no results because in Bulgarian a person's full name (including the middle name) is almost never used. – Uanfala (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not confident enough to cast a !vote, but some sources need to be assessed here: Encyclopedia of Bulgarian Theatre (bg), The Bulgarian Cinema and others like [4]. As Uanfala points out, a strict search for the full name, including middle name, is not really useful. MarioGom (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Bulgarian actress. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has appeared in prominent roles in film and was engaged as an actress at the Ivan Vazov National Theatre, which is Bulgaria's national theatre, and therefore passes WP:NACTOR. Meets WP:BIO in my opinion. That she doesn't have much of a digital/internet presence, I suspect has to do with her "heyday" being in the early 20th-century. Confident there must be some offline sources. ExRat (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Wheels edit

Neo Wheels (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 NCORP. The company has a couple of passing mentions, but no significant coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. M4DU7 (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amazingly, there is one source that mentions this company, but it is a far cry from GNG or NCORP material. Many such cases... jp×g 22:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No secondary, reliable searches came up on the search I performed; all were primary. No WP:BASIC here. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Although the refbombing is a problem, that can and should be fixed editorially. Sandstein 06:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wallbox edit

AfDs for this article:
Wallbox (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 notability requirements miss significant coverage. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS the article's overlinked to death and is a mess, but the sourcing is clearly there to do better. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* I meant WP:REFBOMB. Arse/elbow issues today... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The refbombing is at ridiculous levels, and there's little or no encyclopaedic content, really. But the biggest problem is that when you actually look at the sources, many of them are just product reviews, others are passing mentions of awards etc. (some in primary sources), there are two Forbes 'sites' pieces and a couple of interviews, one is about wallboxes in a generic sense, the Spanish Business Insider article is identical to the English Newsmotor one (hence one is a translation of the other, or both come from some common source), and so on. And none are in what you might call 'solidly RS' publications — trade mags are notorious for accepting press releases and similar content in exchange for the company buying ad space. Once you separate the wheat from the chaff, you may be left with just about enough to establish notability, but I think it's far from clear-cut. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India Herald edit

India Herald (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 available Tulkijasi (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every website is notable, and this ain't no newspaper. Notability of Indian Heralds? The Deccan Herald, natch. I'll even give you O Heraldo. But not this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: None of the sources cited are reliable and independent of the subject. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – my searches aren't finding any sigcov either. I'm glad to change my !vote if there's something I'm missing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newspaper created upon the splitting of the state. No sigcov. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page is not having independent news. Sonofstar (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidika senjaliya edit

Vaidika senjaliya (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:NACTOR no major roles done Tulkijasi (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muse Group edit

Muse Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, sources cited are the company's own (there is one, from Scoring Notes, that looks secondary but is based on their press release) and a search finds nothing better. There doesn't even seem to be much to say about the company, as the contents are mostly about their products. (There is also some likely COI editing involved.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No reliable indepth coverage available. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hard one, TBH. Audacity is very much a thing and Muse appear to have goofed up quickly with the user community. There's little out there beyond the acquisition news and the company could be relegated to a few lines in the Audacity article at this time. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Many sources cited are mentions, primary or about their products. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I think it was a bit soon for the company to get its own article considering it's very new and therefore doesn't have much notability or sourcing (outside of the company itself). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cormack edit

AfDs for this article:
Ben Cormack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in November 2017. Despite a keep result of the previous AfD, notability is still not established, there are still no reliable sources in the article, and I found none via G-searches. Baffle☿gab 05:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources presented in article, none immediately found online. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Search brings up other wikis or book seller sites. Actual book The Story of Egmo is also not properly referenced and nothing showing on searches to show gng or sng, so should also be afd. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The first vote at the other AfD, by Dysklyver – now locked across Wikimedia for sockpuppetry – insists they performed WP:BEFORE but never provided any evidence. The other votes at the AfD basically amounted to: "Well, I couldn't find any sources that show he's notable, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here." While giving an article a second chance in good faith is fine, there's no sign that notability has since been established, will be established, or can be established. Beemer69 who voted Weak keep in the previous AfD seems to have put the most work into determining the notability of the subject and cleaning up the article, so I'll ping her for her thoughts on the matter. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The article The Story of Egmo reeks of undisclosed paid promotion and should either be nominated for deletion if it's found not to be notable or drastically reformed to make it not a blatant advert. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources presented in article, as per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Being bold and closing this one early per WP:SNOW Missvain (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martynas Mažvydas School edit

Martynas Mažvydas School (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 this primary school satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no reliable search results available to qualify this school for WP:NSCHOOL. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. This school is not even notable in Lithuania. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'not even'! Per nom. Tried searching Lithuanian sources - Mažvydas was the first Lithuanian authour, apparently and there appears to be a claim the school was the first to open post-independence, but that's not enough. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Nothing notable about the school. Kolma8 (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7 is the better option. Sonofstar (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete References about this, usable for notability or otherwise, are essentially non-existent. So I don't see the AfD resulting in keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close per SKCRIT#1 as an invalid AfD nomination. Nominator has not advanced a valid rationale for deletion or related action such as redirection. If someone is repeatedly blanking and redirecting an article against consensus, there are other venues to address such issues. (non-admin closure) firefly ( t · c ) 09:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Seonjeong edit

Queen Seonjeong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Strong keep: (nominator) She was the chief queen consort of Goryeo Dynasty of Korea. According to Korean absolute monarchy system, the queen is the second highest-rank after the King. The queens were highest-ranking member at the Royal Court (Goryeo's political system was absolute monarchy, higher than today's parliament system, so not to be compared). Very clearly passes WP:NPOL. According to the WP:POLOUTCOMES for Monarchs and nobility, There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority. The person has received considerable historical coverage from the reliable source National Institute of Korean History. Moreover, she is a major historical figure of nowadays Korea. Biography of her is prescribed to the school by the Education in the Korean history subject as a biographical profile. I know that the articles missing some information. The article need expansion not deletion. IMO, there is no notability problem.

However, there is a dispute that the person is notable for a separate article, or whether the name should be a redirect to the King. I've disputed the change (blank-and-redirect) and an attempt was made to reach a consensus by discussing in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9#Korean queen. My point is the article is notable for an article and should not redirect to Sinjong of Goryeo. But another user favours blank-and-redirect and has no intention of starting an AfD discussion. DR volunteer suggests the best way to resolve this dispute, when the redirect is being used as a back-door deletion, does appear to be a Article for Deletion discussion. VocalIndia (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, i'm so sorry if there's many wrong and missing info or the others in the articles Queen Seonjeong, but if someone knows about Wiki article rules, may you teach me about that??...so, maybe in my next articles will not out from the rules....btw, i'm really happy because i can get a chance to make Korean royal articles and some of them had been reviewed......thanks you so much for this and for Queen Seonjeong, you can free to delete that article if you feels that's not accordance with the rules. Once more, thx so much and sorry for all of my mistakes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningsih ODINN (talk • contribs)
  • procedural close without decision . This looks like an abuse of process. AfD is not where one argue about a content dispute, the article talk page is. – robertsky (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need to learn what is a back-door deletion? We need to discussion for her notability. VocalIndia (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • VocalIndia, eh. the process typically goes from redirection -> reversion -> discussion on talk page per WP:BRD. You skipped the D in the process. A redirection is not a backdoor deletion. It is typically done if one feels that the subject is not notable on its own yet but there is still a possibility to exist on its own. As you have demonstrated, you have reverted Onel5969's redirection. I suggest that you take a step back, cool yourself down, withdraw this, and discuss this civilly on the article's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already started the discussion at Talk:Gwi-in Park and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9#Korean queen. I'm very tired now. VocalIndia (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • VocalIndia, Right. How's those different from this? Why didn't you put this on the article page's talk page as well? and no notifications to the reviewing editor? And don't say that he should be able to see them, and the discussions you have started. Editors can remove the pages from their Watchlist, but cannot avoid notifications. You are tired now? Sure. Take a break. Have a fresh perspective on how to engage others over this and come back later. – robertsky (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. As a Chief Queen or Empress (왕후) and Queen Mother, she would doubtlessly be notable to be kept. Of course, the article is still needing additional reliable citations though. (Actually, almost all Korean queens have had considerable power; such queens have sometimes been referred as the "power behind the throne". Unlike other queens from other parts of the world, queens of Korea had played major roles in the political affairs and cases of succession to the throne.) Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The main argument for notability has been made well by several other users, but just to reiterate: this woman was the queen consort of the ruler of a major historical kingdom. From an East Asian history perspective, she is undoubtedly notable enough for her own article. Topics that are poorly researched by English language studies often lack the number of sources or quantity of information that other pages have, but this is the result of academic bias and the language proficiencies of Wikipedia's users. It does not, therefore, represent a viable basis to question notability, instead (as has been suggested) tagging articles with requests to improve citations, expand the page with text from the non-English article etc, would be more productive. With this in mind, I have now added further reliable citations. Amys eye (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Reacts edit

Flight Reacts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Flight Reacts

YouTuber who does not satisfy general notability or biographical notability. Naïve Google search shows that he is a much-followed YouTuber; we knew that. Much of the article is non-encyclopedic and non-neutral and is written from a fan viewpoint. Trimming all of the fancruft out might not leave much.

Submitted as a draft to AFC, then declined, then copied into article space (and so cannot be moved back into draft space).

The references appear twice, in different orders. This analysis is of the second list. The references are either YouTube, or passing mentions by Steph Curry of the subject, or unresolvable.

Reference Comments Independent Significant
1 Bleacher Reports Passing mention of a comment by the subject Yes No. Passing mention.
2 Essentially Sports Passing mention of a comment by the subject Yes No. Passing mention.
3 YouTube No
4 YouTube No
5 YouTube
6 YouTube
7 BiographyDaily Reference is unresolvable
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article appears multiply problematic but YouTuber with no SIGCOV fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. no reliable coverage available. TheChronium 11:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sources fail to demonstrate notability. Pbrks (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle to understand your viewpoint, all of the articles has been confirmed by Flight Reacts himself in a 40 minute video explaining his life experiences and is a complete replica of his own personal viewpoint on his life constructed into an articulate biography. There is no subjective bias this is exactly how he has explained his career. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexith8670 (talk • contribs) 12:25 7 June (UTC)
  • Delete: fails all notability guidelines. Kaspadoo (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now I actually created the first Wikipedia article for FlightReacts here over a year ago in April of 2020 and it was deleted in this AFD. It looks like somebody tried to recreate the article there again in November and it got deleted too. I think he's probably on the cusp of notability, considering his somewhat popular music (several songs with millions of views and streams on Youtube, Spotify, Apple Music, and Soundcloud) and he has some independent coverage [12] [13]. But I don't think he merits an article yet. He may in the future, but there probably shouldn't be one now per WP:BALL. Ericfood (talk | contribs) 21:23 7 June (UTC)
  • Ericfood With all due respect isn't your point completely subjective? He doesn't have to have a page that is extremely informed as of now, but on the basis, he has nearly ten million followers on Youtube alone and has made a 40-minute video on his early and personal life which was referenced. How is this page any less informed than other content creators such as Ricegum and Adin Ross for instance? He 100 percent merits an article, he's extremely popular and has explained his come-up in great depth. I don't understand you're objection. Provided the information is objective and also informed on someone notable, what is the problem? Mexith8670 (talk • contribs) 12:25 7 June (UTC)
    • I based my decision on Wikipedia's policies. I understand that for a newer contributor such as yourself it might seem like Flight should obviously have an article. I was in the same place a year ago when I created the first iteration of his article. However Flight doesn't really meet the notability guidelines for WP:BLP because there isn't a lot of reliable coverage on him from secondary sources. I'd say that's the biggest obstacle in proving his notability. I know he has high numbers on his YouTube channel, but subscriber numbers are subject to change and not proof of notability. If you can find significant coverage from mostly secondary sources you could prove his notability. I'd recommend reading this essay on YouTube notability. Regarding your point on other YouTubers like Adin Ross and RiceGum, there are lots of YouTubers whose articles are regularly deleted in AfDs. To be honest I don't think Adin Ross meets the notability guidelines either, RiceGum has probably had enough independent coverage to merit an article though. This isn't to say I agree with the Wikipedia policies, I think they're a little too strict on the notability guidelines for popular YouTubers, but we have to follow the guidelines. Ericfood (talk | contribs) 06:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is almost 100% user Junefith. Same article edit history etc. It also raises questions over Mexith8670 who has edited exclusively the same articles and have made the same removals, per WP:DUCK.Koncorde (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Narcissistic personality disorder. Very selectively. Consensus is that it is preferable to cover this topic, if at all, as part of the article about the disorder. Sandstein 05:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissistic abuse edit

AfDs for this article:
Narcissistic abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not only lacking sources and citations, it is clearly sympathetic of abusers. It is incorrect, uninformed, and offensive. Idmidiom (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 04:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nominations should not be made as proxies for new editors as the proper process of WP:BEFORE is not done and valid reasons for deletion are not stated, so that there is no case to answer. This faux nomination is especially vexatious as the topic has already been at AfD before, when the result was Keep. The topic is also highly notable as there are numerous books written specifically about it – see links above. What the topic clearly needs is some competent and expert editing per WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT. Perhaps Casliber can spare us a moment... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: I'm not going to argue the merit of the nomination--I've processed quite a number of these on behalf of anonymous IPs and newer editors, and while they have (to put it charitably) varied widely in terms of merit, that does not in any way mean that they have not been made in good faith. This one was a bit borderline by even my generous standards, but I see no reason to be apologetic about it. As for the previous "keep" verdict: That was a decade ago, and standards have evolved considerably since then. If that discussion had occurred, say, last year, it might very well have tipped the balance in the other direction. --Finngall talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per Andrew as there are numerous books written specifically about it. It should easily pass WP:BASIC. TheChronium 11:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - based on Andrew Davidson's argument above. The subject of the article is clearly notable, per its current sourcing/citations as well as a multitude of other available references online that could be added to the article to further improve it. Deletion discussions are not a forum for deleting the things one might personally disagree with, however it seems that the nomination is based on that criteria rather than WP's guidelines and policies for notability. Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant material to Narcissistic personality disorder, Domestic violence or any other abuse pages. Article reads like an essay bordering on original research between NPD and DV and other types of abuse. Looking at google scholar, there are a handful of primary sources (articles and books) and zero secondary sources. The issue is a very serious one. Abuse is abuse whether perpetrated by someone with NPD, BPD or ASPD, or something else, and having a subpage like this I feel detracts from the quality of a more coherent stronger parent article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. This is a terrible article about a terrible pop-psych concept. Nonetheless, many terrible pop-psych concepts get articles one way or another, and this is definitely a popular enough one to describe somewhere. The article is in such poor shape that I might recommend WP:TNT deletion, considering my prior comments on pop-psych information making its way to Wikipedia. I worry this may be a topic on which a policy-compliant article would be near-impossible to write, considering the gap between what coverage exists and what sources would be necessary to write an article that isn't a horrible ableist clusterfuck. I might be inclined, if I have to, to suggest a very selective merge -- somewhere along the lines of a single sentence -- to e.g. the main NPD article that explains that 'narcissistic abuse' is a currently popular way of conceptualizing certain forms of abusive relationships. Vaticidalprophet 01:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further thought and specification: considering stigma and due weight, merging this to NPD is probably a bad idea, rather than merging it ("it" again defined as "like, a sentence") to an abuse-related article. Vaticidalprophet 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm in agreement with Andrew Davidson that it's not generally helpful to proxy-nominate articles for deletion, this is a case where I think the concerns with the article greatly outweigh the bureaucracy of who nominated it. I am in agreement with Casliber that this topic is not really independently notable of all of the other forms of abuse and narcissism itself - and any salvageable content (which I see little of) can be merged to those articles. Casliber's last sentence puts it well. Also going to second Vaticidal - merge any useful content then TNT this article, without prejudice against recreating in the future in a much better state (if possible - which I agree with Vatidical may not be the case). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete! People need to understand this disorder especially if they are living with someone with this! Critical to have access to information a definition & further resources to learn how to deal with this person & safe steps to take. As well as how to heal from the abuse cycle. This is what saved me after ... understanding and access to information on healing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.140.46.186 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC) — 32.140.46.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge relevant material to Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury. While abuse dynamics as described popularly under the heading of narcissistic abuse certainly happen, it's rarely connected with recognized and diagnosed NPD, and the description of the phenomenon belongs under narcissistic rage rather than the NPD article. It serves neither survivors nor people with NPD to have this mess of an unsourced article floating around. 12.227.254.2 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but no merge, at least right now. This seems to be a notable and well covered subject as appears from articles retrieved by Google scholar [14] and from sourcing on the page. In addition, it might be merged with another page on a closely related topic. But I think that would be better addressed by starting a separate discussion on merging. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We should be embarrassed to have this "article" on Wikipedia. It is a hodgepodge of random ramblings devoid of any cohesive meaning. The phrase "narcissistic abuse" does not appear in the title of any articles in prominent journals and in only two obscure books. Do narcissistic adults often cause harm to children and others? Yes, of course. But that topic is best addressed within articles such as Child abuse, Psychological abuse, Domestic violence, Narcissistic personality disorder, etc. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Markworthen--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge very selectively to Narcissistic personality disorder (taking extreme care to leave the OR and meandering synthesis behind), and then delete what remains. firefly ( t · c ) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Markworthen, and the spirit of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As a page based primarily on a lexical premise ("hypernym"), I am unable - in general - to see compelling reasons for merger/s. 86.186.168.216 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the topic is related to medicine, and WP:MEDRS, it would be good to weight the arguments above through the prism of the expertise of the person giving them. For the record, I don't have background in medicine sufficien to think my opinion about this topic has much merit, although through the prism of expert Wikipedian and scholar in other fields I'll note that Google Scholar does have some hits for this term. But whether they are reliable or quacky I am not sure. Not a single journal article I see in GSCholar appears to be widely cited, or comes from a journal a relative outsider like me would recognize (Lancet, etc.). My current view is that the topic is very WP:FRINGE in the current medical studies, and/or is a fork of what is better known as the narcissistic personality disorder (a term that is much more widely used in scholarly literature), but I am not going to put my head on the block for this claim. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more or less a pop-psych concept. Personally, I think it gross ableism. It's a fairly popular pop-psych concept regardless of my thoughts, and I'm unsurprised we have an article for it, but we probably shouldn't, and there's a reasonable question about whether we should be hosting such material at all. I do think if we don't have mention of it somewhere then good(?)-faith contributors will keep trying to mention it, but maybe we should just delete outright and revert as they go. Vaticidalprophet 01:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 06:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharjah Wanderers edit

Sharjah Wanderers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Before check shows that the article does not meet WP:ORG and lacks WP:ORGDEPTH. Possibly a WP:ADPROMO. nirmal (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How very ironic. The article was created by me, it's not a promo and is as sourced as its going to get, given that it's a small members only club important to the British and sporting communities of the Emirate of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates. However, I do note it comfortably passes WP:ORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above seems to have enough sources available to pass notability. Okaye Agongo (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Garner, Kentucky edit

Little Garner, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNIS is sourced to Rennick, whose Boyd County directory has Garner, Boyd County, Kentucky and mentions Garner Creek (Kentucky), but does not have "Little Garner". Kentucky Geographic Names has Little Garner Creek, but no community of Little Garner. Searching brings up Little Garner Road in Ashland, some nicknames for people, a place in North Carolina, somebody dumping moonshine in Little Garner Creek, and two passing mentions to somebody being "of" Little Garner. I don't think there's enough written about this place to demonstrate notability. Hog Farm Talk 05:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of Garner Creek in a different place does make this difficult. The creeks here are specifically Little Garner and Big Garner, and I cannot find any source saying anything other than creeks, including the 1991 Omni Gazetteer of the United States of America. The actual local communities mentioned in what I turn up are Ashland, Kentucky and Westwood, Boyd County, Kentucky. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Little Garner" as a location isn't on any USGS maps until 2010, when it inexplicably shows up there. Google Maps does show that there are quite a few houses there, but Little Garner itself isn't marked on the map; every address in the vicinity is marked as Ashland or just Boyd County. There's a Little Garner Creek there, and a Little Garner Road that travels along it (merges with Kentucky Route 716 at Summit Road; actually really confusing since current maps list northbound Summit as Route 716, yet topographic maps claim it's the entirety of Little Garner Road), but again, nothing else showing it actually exists. AdoTang (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peterman Hill edit

Peterman Hill (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 GNIS entry, which is always a bad sign for USA places. Newspapers.com brought up a shooting and a murder happening here, as well as two moonshine raids "on Peterman['s] Hill". Searching in other places mainly brought up mirrors and clickbait. This may simply be an informal name for a collection of houses on the hill; no sign of significant coverage that I could find. Hog Farm Talk 05:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a name for a hill that has never been formalized, from what I can see. The correct name of the ridge is "Laurel Ridge", Geographic Names Information System, United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior. There's no Peterman Hill on any map that I can find. Just one map has a Peterman Marsh Run Road instead of Cannonsburg Road. The river that the road tracks is always Marsh Run, no Peterman, however. There is a Peterman Hill in a 1927 report of a contract awarded to macadamize a road "from top of Peterman Hill to Cannonsburg Crossing", that does not say where this hill is, not even what direction from Cannonsburg it is, or that it is the road discussed here, or that it ever happened.

    Nothing in this article is right. It's a hill, not a community. The link from it to the 1890s-named "Cannonsburg-Catlettsburg Turnpike" is unverifiable. Ironically, the Midland Trail through Kentucky is notable, but it is not this road as claimed. The 1952 Historic Kentucky Highways gives that name to U.S. Route 62 in Kentucky, and later sources (such as Winchester Sun columnist's Harry G. Enoch's 2018 Where In The World?, which has a 1926 map showing this and an explanation of the political fight about it in the 1920s that is sourced to doi:10.1353/khs.2015.0031) state that it is actually U.S. Route 60 in Kentucky and connects to Ashland, which this road does not. This isn't even Cannonsburg's own Midland Trail Road. This road is apparently the one authorized in 1930 (by an Act of the Kentucky General Assembly) to go from the Midland Trail to Catlettsburg. It's in Wikipedia at List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (3000–3499)#KY 3294. The Act makes no mention of a Peterman, either.

    This article does not seem to be verifiably true.

    Uncle G (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Based on the analysis per User:HighKing. Nothing has convinced me this subject meets WP:GNG based on the sourcing. Missvain (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special Strong edit

Special Strong (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 fails GNG Urartuvanking (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Urartuvanking (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has significant coverage and meets WP:ORG .Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above, passes WP:ORG has indepth coverage in many sources. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertorials masquerading as news. Not a single reference comes close to meeting the requirements for establishing notability of this *company*. Most of the articles focus on the founder and only mention the company in passing. Maybe the founder is notable, but the company does not meet NCORP requirements.
    • Forbes blog post fails WP:RS
    • Dallas News profile of a guy called Robert working out with the founder and is a discussion on the benefits of exercise for special needs. Very little info on the company and all of it provided by the founder, fails WP:ORGIND
    • Graced Health blog, fails WP:RS
    • Mindbody Online profile of the founder, all info on the company provided by the founder, fails ORGIND
    • Autism Sprectrum New written by the founder, fails as a Primary source
    • Video1, Video2 and Video3 are all commenting on the same "viral" video filmed by the founder, fails CORPDEPTH (no info about the company) and ORGIND (material produced by the founder, no Independent Content)
    • Fort Worth Business is an advertorial for the company, all info provided by the founder, no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
    • Reframing Ministries is a blog, fails WP:RS
I haven't managed to locate a single reference that meets the criteria, topic fails NNCORP HighKing++ 13:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree with some of your assessment by HighKing,  Fort Worth Business is a reliable publication and has in-depth coverage on them. There is no indication anywhere that this is an advertorial. CityLiefeStyle, not mentioned by HighKing, has in-depth coverage on them. In addition, they have been featured on several major media and TV (ABC, NBC, FOX), although not in-depth, just the fact that they have so much coverage, helps with the overall notability. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response "reliable source" and "in-depth coverage" is two out of three - people always tend to try to ignore WP:ORGIND and the fact that all the information is provided by the company (in a glowingly positive way, hence the term "advertorial"). Same as the CityLifeStyle article originally published in McKinney & Prosper - once you see it in the original magazine, you'll see it as an advertorial also. The entire magazine is one big bunch of ads. You need to examine very closely those times when the CEO is being interviewed or there are mentions of the company and ask - who is providing the information. To pass ORGIND, it can't originate from the company/CEO/founder/executive and be published - the reference requires independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of those links provide that. HighKing++ 10:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CityLifeStyle and McKinney & Prosper publications are from the same company. Deftwapt (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a good amount of reliable coverage overall, should be enough to pass the notability bar. Jaysonsands (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above seems to have enough sources available to pass notability. Okaye Agongo (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far, nobody appears to be engaging in a discussion about the sourcing and references. Reasons such as "good amount of reliable coverage" and "enough sources available" without providing links makes it difficult to understand the precise reasons for the !vote and, to my mind at least, shows some !voters don't really seem to be bothering to look. This isn't a count of !votes, it is meant to be a discussion. HighKing++ 12:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The combined sources and TV news coverage seems enough to make this organization qualify for WP:ORG because as per WP:ORG, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. And here Special Strong clearly qualifies this criterion by getting coverage on reputed websites and getting featured on major TV channels like ABC, NBC, Fox News, Channel 24, News 24 and many others for their notable works like making Brandon Neal walked again in over 8 years which was a notable moment itself in medical mystery and got highlighted in almost all major world news channels for the same. So, Overall when both website and TV coverage combined, it is more than enough to make this brand qualify for WP:ORG. Deftwapt (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deftwapt, thanks for clarifying but your interpretation of WP:NCORP is simply wrong. You don't get to consider all references at once, each reference is examined individually. Each reference should pass all of the requirements of NCORP and as I've shown above, not a single reference when considered in isolation (as is proper) meets the criteria for establishing notability. If you disagree, either point me to where my interpretation of NCORP is off or point to a single reference that meets NCORP. HighKing++ 21:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying and I agree with you on some. But receiving coverage in multiple sources either some of them are not full-featured posts but having 3-4 para which talks in-depth about the subject and having multiple news coverage which is independent and reliable should make it qualify. Deftwapt (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that simply isn't the way WP:NCORP works. It's designed specifically to make it more difficult for organizations that rely entirely on spammy promotional references like the ones here to use this platform for even more promotion. Oh ... and when your use the word "independent", you're using it in the context of "corporate independedce", that is, the publisher has no corporate relationship with the topic organization. That is not the complete nor correct definition and I'm going by the "Independent Content" definition in WP:ORGIND which says the content must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I invite you once more to provide a link to any single reference that meets the criteria. Just one. HighKing++ 11:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HighKing.-KH-1 (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creation of SPA, remarkable WP page creation skills for a brand new account. Sourcing does not pass WP:ORG, overlinked mess. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a new user and was earlier used to edits through IP before. I have a basic knowledge of Wikipedia. Deftwapt (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per having coverage in multiple sources and major news TV channels this article should qualify for WP:ORG. I think this company has been the subject of enough independent and reliable sources like The Dallas Morning News, GoodNewsNetwork, ABC, NBC, Fox News, Channel 24 and many others which can surely warrant notability, please see the source table below for the same. Deftwapt (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Deftwapt
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Dallas News Yes Yes The source is a major news website Yes The source discusses all details what this organization does ✔ Yes
Forbes ~ Yes The source is a major news website Yes The source discusses all details what this organization does ~ Partial
Good News Network Yes Yes This source is reliable Yes The source discusses all details what this organization does ✔ Yes
Yahoo News Yes Yes The source is a major news website ~ The article mentions the organization works ~ Partial
Moms Yes Yes The source is reliable ~ The article mentions the organization works ~ Partial
Dallas Doing Good Yes Yes The source is reliable Yes The source discusses all details what this organizationdoes ✔ Yes
Graced Health No No Yes The source discusses all details what this organization does ✘ No
Reframing Ministries Yes Yes This publication is a major website Yes The source discusses all details what this organization does ✔ Yes
Autism Speaks No No Yes The source discusses all details what this organization does ✘ No
ABC News Yes Yes This is a well known major TV channel No The source mentions the organization works ✘ No
Channel 24 Yes Yes This is a well known major TV channel No The source mentions the organization works ✘ No
NBC Yes Yes This is a well known major TV channel No The source mentions the organization works ✘ No
McKinney & Prosper Yes Yes This is a well known news website Yes The source discusses all details what this organization does ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Hi, Alexandermcnabb, I didn't ignore any of Highking's inputs. I followed them and showed sources that seem good enough to me to pass this company for notability criteria. Deftwapt (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested to hear how you are defining "Independent" because from what I can see, it doesn't follow ORGIND guidelines. "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. Not a single reference you've posted above meets *both* CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND which is a requirement. I asked above for you to post just a single link to any single reference that you believe meets the criteria and we can go through it. Take any reference you like and highlight any part that provides in-depth information on the *company* and which is "Independent content". By my analysis, not a single source above meets the criteria. HighKing++ 11:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I won't repeat the analysis that HighKing provided above, but I concur with it. Most of the sources presented here are either outright spam, of dubious reliability (or significance), non-independent because they just quote the founder, or simply feel-good stories that don't provide any significant coverage of the company itself. --Blablubbs|talk 11:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contrary to what many of the keeps say here, notability is not established because the sources are unreliable, black hat SEO or contributor pieces. BEACHIDICAE🌊 13:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Going with the case presented by User:SportsOlympic. Missvain (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bente Munkerud-Aas edit

Bente Munkerud-Aas (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:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Speed skater on a modest national level. Geschichte (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not any sign of a WP:BEFORE. Not even a mention to the link in the article to the almost 350 newspaper articles. And these are not only trivial mentions; see for instance here. In many articles also an image is showing her, 2 examples here and here. This already shows by the basics of WP:GNG (WP:BASIC): "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". SportsOlympic (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Going with the analysis provided by User:JoelleJay for this one. Missvain (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rigmor Lundby edit

Rigmor Lundby (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:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Speed skater on a modest national level. Geschichte (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not any sign of a WP:BEFORE. Athlete has coverage in almost 1000 newspaper articles. And these are not only trivial mentions. Many articles are entitled her name and has images of her. A few articles I randomly opened on the first 10: 1, 2, 3. This already shows by the basics of WP:GNG (WP:BASIC): "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". SportsOlympic (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 TT me 04:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can see the sources provided are merely routine sporting event recaps in local papers (in one case, tucked in alongside births, obituaries, and a 6-paragraph 65th birthday announcement ("Alfred Hjelm, [street address], turns 65 on Monday...")), none going into any real detail on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omniplan (architects) edit

Omniplan (architects) (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 has been tagged as unreferenced since August 2008.
Appears to fail WP:NCORP in that there does not appear to be significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to AllyD for pointing out that they were notable under a previous name; makes the WP:BEFORE search so much easier now! Cheers, ——Serial 13:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This firm (previously known as Harrell & Hamilton) was included in MoMA's Transformations in Modern Architecture" exhibition in 1979: [20]. Not in itself sufficient to demonstrate notability but indicative of some notice beyond the local. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Federation of Philatelists edit

Croatian Federation of Philatelists (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. BEFORE completed. Created by serial creator of unreferenced stub articles (who hasn't responded to repeated queries to work on/participate in improvement/discussion). Was prodded years ago, and three articles with the same text were added, so I removed two of those, plus an outdated directory listing that mentioned the president. While there are other mentions of the organization online, I am finding nothing of note. If someone is able to write an actual article out of something I have missed (not just an "article" that serves as a directory listing) of this organization from good, independent, reliable secondary sources, I would consider withdrawing the nomination. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Passing listings in directories and other such passing mentions do not establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Michael Douglas edit

Anthony Michael Douglas (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 no reliable coverage. Urartuvanking (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Urartuvanking (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the mix of various social media and other non-reliable sources does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and above, the mix of non-reliable sources does not establish GNG. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OS Fund edit

OS Fund (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 fails WP:ORGSIG 195.50.217.92 (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copypasted from WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 16:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Not seeing much here outside few mentions in passing, press-releases and their rewrites. Fails GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the articles related to Bryan Johnson and his companies (Kernel, OS Fund, Braintree, Venmo) seem promotional in tone. I was the one who nominated this article. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hey, come on, "Co-founders on administrative leave after FBI raid!" Investment funds are generally boring, but I think the hijinks make this one notable. Bill Woodcock (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like the IP who nominated is a nonsense enemy who came here 1 day requested deletion of multiple pages and had slept in peace. Clearly meets WP:GNG and others based on sources. 73.62.240.227 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those personal insults are uncalled for and add nothing to the discussion. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Company has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and Fortune) concerning its investment activity. Johnnie Bob (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fund has been covered by several independent, reliable sources and is certainly on par with many other VC firms that have Wiki pages. (I did go through the article and try to neutralize some of the language.)BlueHorseshoe (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know that venture capital is despised at AfD -- often with good reason -- but this seems to have some pretty significant coverage by independent outlets (especially the WSJ pieces). While there are some cringe sources (there's a Forbes contributor blog post, as well as a Medium article and a Crunchbase profile) and some dreck needs to be trimmed, there are enough good ones to support an article. Parenthetically, while doing some WP:BEFORE I found a Chicago Tribune piece and times.co.uk piece that didn't seem to be in the article. jp×g 06:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full Crate edit

Full Crate (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:MUSICBIO. No reliable sources are cited and I can't find any independent significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Lennart97, is anything wrong with the following sources with or without articles on Wikipedia? Rated R&B[21], The Fader[22], Earmilk[23], Entertainment Focus[24], and EDM Identity[25]. gidonb (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gidonb: I don't think there's anything wrong with these, especially the first three as they're clearly notable by Wiki standards, but the other two look fine, too. Which means that there is coverage of Full Crate out there that I overlooked :). I do, however, doubt whether this altogether amounts to significant coverage. The first three articles are essentially all just short "this song/video just dropped" pieces without any real information about Full Crate; [5] is longer but similarly doesn't tell us a lot. Only [4] has a very small amount of biographical/general information on Full Crate as a person/musician, but likely not nearly enough to base an article on. Lennart97 (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly. Plenty of passing mentions about producing music and music release announcements, but, nothing that shows me the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC nor WP:NMUSIC. Missvain (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On one hand there are multiple independent items about the musician, not just passing mentions, some, not all, contain biographic information. All reflect milestones in his career. On the other hand, the sources are very specialized and in the major media the mentions really are passing. The best one reviewed his performance in one sentence. Usually he is just in a lineup. All this plus the BLP consideration lead me to the conclusion that it is still WP:TOOSOON. Full Crate needs to be a bit wider known and covered to be included in WP. gidonb (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – bradv🍁 15:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Jeays edit

Philip Jeays (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:MUSICBIO. scope_creepTalk 16:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm a big fan of Philip Jeays, but he is rather 'under the radar'. There is some coverage around, e.g. [26], [27], [28]. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: He has a quite a few albums out. scope_creepTalk 20:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tagged for notability for a decade? Mr J's website cites some reviews from pretty mainstream media, but all unlinked from the '90s, before the modern era and all that. There's nothing much beyond the local papers quoted above, (very local coverage) to meet WP:GNG out there now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, nobody is listening to his music, no social media either, no streaming. scope_creepTalk 09:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well as the sources identified in this discussion he also has a staff written bio at AllMusic here as well as five staff written album reviews linked in the AllMusic discography. Consideration should be given to the factor of his age being almost 60 and his genre of music (French chansesuse) being completely out of fashion so WP:Notability is not temporary applies imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews are great in principle, but nobody is listening to his music. Nobody. He has 67 monthly listeners on Youtube and no presence on social media. Nobody. He has no fans, no plays, no streams, no social media. scope_creepTalk 09:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's rubbish. He's sold plenty of albums and I've watched a couple of recent live streams along with 100s of other people. He's not big on self-promotion, but he does have a significant number of fans. I'm not saying he's notable by WP standards, but please stop making such ridiculous statements. --Michig (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: Self promotion has nothing to do with it. You sound like a fan who is naturlly biased. Spotify is the biggest in the west and its figures are so accurate that industry uses then. But its just not there, look at Amazon Music, Soundcloud, Apple Music and so on. Nobody is listening to him. And when you look at Youtube, his bigest watched video is 1000 plays. His latest video had 24 people watching it. Where is the coverage. There is nothing there either. If he was really big e.g. 10 years ago, there would be coverage, and there isn't. scope_creepTalk 11:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated that I'm a fan, but I am remaining objective, unlike you who is stating that a video of his has had 1000 plays while at the same time stating "nobody is listening to him" and that he has "no fans". Please stick to accepted notability criteria and stop exaggerating. --Michig (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing presented above, nor my own due diligence, shows that the subject meets WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As well as the rationales presented above, the article as it now stands is an unsourced BLP, so could be deleted per WP:BLPDELETE. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has been my long-standing contention that editors who want to fix and rescue an article per WP:HEY have to do the actual, literally, hard work of fixing the article, not just figuratively waving their fingers around on a keyboard. I've rescue over 100 articles this way, so I have no sympathy. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - On his own website he says "I just think my energies are directed more into being creative than being famous". And that's a perfectly valid way to be an artist; it's how most people do it, it simply won't warrant an article here. As with the others above, I cannot find any significant coverage of him or his work, at all, anywhere. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - well now, I'm going to argue against a number of editors whose opinions I greatly respect, but the Allmusic staff bio + Goldmine review + Petersfield Post = multiple reliable independent sources with coverage significantly surpassing passing mentions. I don't think The Argus is independent enough, being short and mostly consisting of interview. I found a very small review in The Tennesseean at newspapers.com, which isn't very significant but does show geographic scope. This is modified to "weak" because I Ritchie333 makes a point regarding BLPDELETE, and per Bearian I'm well, working on other stuff. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it wasn't I that you were referring to, but to me the Allmusic and Petersfield sources didn't feel especially robust, especially considering that Allmusic as an archival resource has much lower standards for inclusion than Wikipedia. With what few sources have been positively identified, to me it feels like the primary issue is that what we have doesn't quite scrape past criteria 1 for WP:MUSICBIO. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Allmusic has lower standards for inclusion, it's a music review site, not an encyclopedia. A staff writer at Allmusic can write about anyone he finds interest in. Now, if enough reliable sources find interest in this person, we call it meeting GNG, which is essentially what NMUSIC#1 is. By the way, Allmusic is the online version of print media, at least the staff written parts of it. In this instance, the staff writer is Dave Thompson (author), who is significant enough of a writer to have his own article here. So lets look at NMUSIC #1. Are the three sources I mention "multiple". Yes. Are they non-trivial. Yes. Are they reliable? Yes. Are they not self-published? Yes. Are they independent of the subject? Yes. Therefore MUSICBIO #1 is met. GNG is accordingly met. The topic deserves an article according to our notability guidelines. The question is, does this topic deserve this article, and there is cogent reasoning as to why not, as I explained above, hence the "weak" keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the sources already mentioned, my university library search turned up the following non trivial reviews from the Edinburgh International Festival during the 1990s:

  • Alison Mercer (August 22, 1996). EDINBURGH '96 REVIEW: Philip Jeays Trio. p. 36. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)


  • SHOW PEOPLE: GOT AN EAR FOR IT. September 25, 1997. p. 12. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  • Thom Dibdin (August 13, 1998). EDINBURGH REVIEW: Still Playing the Fool. p. 23. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  • Alison Freebaim (August 12, 1999). EDINBURGH review: Phip Jeays--Here I Am. p. 19. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

These sources, along with those mentioned above, show sustained non-trivial coverage over a considerable time period. The Edinburg Festival is a major event, and he performed there multiple times.4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Thanks to the editors who have found the coverage mentioned here, there is clearly enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have now added these (and more) sources to the article. --Michig (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Given the current state of the article per 4meter4's findings, I'm willing to admit my mind's been changed. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Not opposed to speedy renomination for AfD) Missvain (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Sood edit

Amit Sood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is entirely self-sourced, as was most of the content I just removed for making woo-woo claims based on primary sources. Google finds no RS to use here. There are other people called Amit Sood who account for the handful of RS within the 96 Google hits I get for the name quoted. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Checked Google Scholar [29]. Multiple highly cited academic works exist and hence satisifies the criteria 1 for WP:Academic. There is no GS profile but from the titles of the papers, I think it is the same person. Matches the kind of profile he has. Also, WP:GNG need not be fulfilled when we are using WP:Academic. (Happens all the time!). Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomadicghumakkad, a BLP requires reliable independent sources, not lists of things they did. BLP is more stringent than GNG, and yes, GNG absolutely does apply to academics because WP:NOTDIR. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chair of Mayo Clinic's Mind Body Initiative, easily notable by citation record (NACADEMIC#1).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 05:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Nomadicghumakkad said, there are many highly cited academic works which Amit Sood contributed to. Here are some highly cited ones worth mentioning: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] There are a lot more on Google Scholar, so I think it's safe to say these can satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. HoneycrispApples (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep per WP:NACADEMIC -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per all passes WP:NACADEMIC. Zackdasnicker (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NACADEMIC specifically states Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1., the argument being used by many of the keep !votes. --Masem (t) 14:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And citation numbers in only the hundreds is not very high, here, for considering the other facets of what NACAD#1 is looking for. --Masem (t) 14:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hundreds of citations are not considered low from what I know. Happy to be proven wrong. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we are talking the initial evidence of an influential work that we later can write more about from 3rd party sources, I would expect that the number of citations back to one or more of a person's papers to start around the low thousands, or have an impression number of papers in the high 500+ range. This person does not have that. --Masem (t) 19:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. That's famous, not just notable. Almost nobody has that kind of record unless they are in NAS/ Royals Society territory., which is much more than just notable. (or unless one of the papers happens to be a major clinical trial, and then there would be dozens of authors to share it) For reason specified below, this isn't a good article to be concerned with citations, . DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Citation counts run high in medicine, and the subject's do not stand out as exceptional, so I'm not seeing a pass of WP:PROF#C1. (The Google Scholar results include some false positives, like authors with different middle initials, and the genuine results feature long author lists with no indication that Sood himself took a leading role.) A couple mid-level administrative positions at the Mayo Clinic aren't the university-president-or-equivalent status that WP:PROF#C6 asks for. "Fellow" isn't the ACP's highest level of membership; the parallel to an IEEE or APS Fellow would be a "master" at ACP. So, WP:PROF#C3 is out. On top of all that, in order to describe accomplishments in the subject's field, we would need sources that comply with WP:MEDRS. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. His citation counts would be good for a technical topic in a low-citation field, but are nothing special in pop-psych (which is what I think this is more than medicine). He has written a lot of books but I could find zero reviews. And I found a lot of churnalism publicity-pieces, or worse publicity pieces about other publicity pieces like this announcement for a TV episode, but only one piece that looks both reliable and in-depth (while still being a publicity piece): this one in the Star Tribune. So although there are hints towards WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG, none of them is convincing to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete His MA profile is not particularly impressive in a high citation field with only about 3k citations. He has some highly cited work (first author paper with 322 citations). --hroest 02:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am also seeing lot of coverage otherwise, for example an interview with Forbes [35], mention at Miss Malini [36], podcasts and radio [37], [38], coming on CBS News Sunday Morning [39]. All of this indicates notability at Criteria 7. Those who are saying that we need thousands of citations in medicine are generalizing medicine as a whole which isn't right. Medicine is a broad domain. His work seems to be inclined towards stress and mental health. So if we are indeed trying to set standards to understand if work is highly cited, we need to compare with his peers in the same domain and not from general medicine maybe. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think "occasional talking head" is really the standard of influence that WP:PROF#C7 expects, and mental health isn't exactly a backwater in the medical field. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eostrix and Nomadicghumakkad multiple mentions, positions held in academic institution and citations of paper combines as a notable person. Chirota (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me for asking, but ... how? "Multiple mentions" aren't significant coverage, the positions he's held aren't top-level, and the citation record is unremarkable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
signicicant coverage is not the standard for NPROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF#C7, which concerns substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, asks for more than passing media appearances, since those are a typical part of the job. My concern is that the "multiple mentions" are, by that standard, unremarkable. He works on stress and health; of course he's going to get quoted or interviewed here and there. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. speedy delete as intent & original article was entirely promotional and rescue is impractical--this is a case for TNT. ' (see my comment lower down) DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(previous omment): The effective standard for WP:PROF in medicine has bene stable for the several years years as 2 or more works with over 100 citations each, so it seems he passes, with 15 such articles (previously, it was 1 article with over 100, but the amount of publication and multiple authorship keeps increasing) . DavidE seems to want to change to a much higher figure, but I don;'t think there's consensus for that. Even if there were, Sood has 6 papers with over 200 citations each, and that would certainly be enough.. . The argument that it has to meet GNG also is simply wrong, and can not be supported by a reading of the notability guidelines (I'll just mention that when I came here in 2006 some people didn't yet accept WP:PROF, but I pointed out that anyone who had even one paper with , say, 20 citations, would have at least 2 of them that discussed it substantially--and that would be enough to make almost every assistant professor notable, tho the analysis for each would take considerable effort. Not even I wanted to go quite that far; the furtherest I've ever argued for is associate professor. ) DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG-- With respect, where and when was the standard that 2 works with 100+ citations is highly cited established? I'm not convinced that a few users agreeing across AfDs (if that's what this is) really makes a standard... I'm curious to see actual links to discussions &c. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it depends on how many authors there are. A publication with 100 cites by one author carries more weight than the same publication with ten authors. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
This can get very complicated:At one extreme, there are biomed papers like multicenter studies where every physician who contributes a case is listed as an author. A single author paper in clinical medicine is likely to be a case study, which is not significant, or a authoritative review, which very much is. Experimental work always has multiple authors: it is normally conducted in groups supported by a grant to a single senior individual, divided into smaller groups headed by a post-doc and 1 or more grad students and often an1 or 2 undergrads. (this is a great oversimplification, there are innumerable variations). The idea can come from the head of the lab, who recruits a postdoc to supervise the experiments conducted by the grad students. Or the head may just be providing the money and space for innovative postdocs or grad students to carry out their own ideas.
What academic appointment committees look for to show that someone important is the what they have done independently after their postodc, tho it often overlaps. And in rare cases someone brilliant will come up with something independent and important as a grad student . This can be a major research project in sociology of science; I can judge it approximately for some but not all fields, for there are some universal elements. And an additional way for at least some consistency is to compare with others in the field, both in and out of WP. That can be yet a further substanatial project.
But that's not our problem. Our need is only to make a rough estimate, not hire someone who we will have to work with for the rest of our career. There are the ones so influential in their field that they must be an in encyclopedia , and those so uninfluential that they shouldn't be. The ones we end up discussing here are in the middle and could rationally go either way. And the way we're set up, there are only those two choices. So there is no exact answer, and no need for an exact answer. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's something odd here. There's a partial disconnect between his research work, with is stress-related studies, where he has multiple works over 200. citations each , and the details clearly indicate he is at least co-principal investigator, and the popular books, which won't show him notable by WP:PROF, but might possible as WP:AUTHOR. Looking at the arti e history of the article, it was written by someone paying attention only to the pop psych stuff. The puffery was removed, and I just added the real science. But as far as the articlwe goes, there is no point rescuing it. This is straight G11 promotionalism . If we wa ant an article on him as a scientist, we should start over. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and therefore I changed my !vote above to speedy delete G11. He's a notable enough scientist, but the rest of the article, especially the original article, is so utterly bad that it needs to be removed from the article history. And I am certainly not about to do the work involved for someone who would, apparently, pay to use WP for this sort of advertising. (I'll copy my comments on WP:PROF to my user talk for further discussion, as a general question). DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NACADEMIC, and probably NAUTHOR also; concerns wrt promotional editng can be addressed through re-writing and at noticeboards. But, fundamentally, fails G11 as it would not need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as [an] encyclopedia article. ——Serial 13:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Dr. Amit Sood is a highly respected physician and researcher at the Mayo clinic, which is a world-renowned research institution. Listing his publications and references is a resource for open source education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.29 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Clopet edit

Tristan Clopet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by account with no other editing history. At first I tried to rescue the article from its many issues, but after researching further, the subject just does not appear notable. This version, before I began editing, shows the amount of fluff and clearly promotional material. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 19:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 19:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked the refs in the article and it is failing wp:basic. A google search returns only social media. Desertarun (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Surely an attempted resume or promotion. He appears to have a solid career making music for TV and films while dabbling in his own stuff on the side, but he has not received the significant and reliable media notice that is necessary here, and this article is little more than a copy of his own social media self-promotions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh Guide Association edit

Kazakh Guide 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)

The organisation does not appear to have ever been subject to significant coverage. Fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organisations. Basically, no sources. The only source in the article says nothing about the organisation (original research). Renat 19:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Renat 19:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Renat 19:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our coverage of Kazakhstan is so poor we should be very slow to remove any of it. Rathfelder (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about answering you by pointing to WP:EVERYTHING, but WP:EVERYTHING applies when the subject exists/existed and in this case I am not sure this organisation ever existed (probably, it existed at some point (then I wonder what's the name of the organisation in Russian or Kazakh?), but that does not mean anything in this discussion). Just because someone thinks that "our coverage of Kazakhstan is so poor", doesn't mean every single non-notable, with no significant coverage article related to Kazakhstan should be kept.--Renat 23:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack clear evidence as to when this organization existed, and lack even total evidence that the organization ever existed. This is not enough to justify an article on a thing. We can not wave the need sourcing requirement to justify articles on things in countries on which we have little coverage. Down that path lies the madness of creaing down right fiction on some countries. That is not the way to get better coverage of things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Apatow edit

Iris Apatow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advanced search for: 
"Iris Apatow"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

This actress has no significant roles nor won any awards or recognitions to meet WP:NACTOR. Most of the coverage I have seen are brief passing mentions on articles that focus on her parents and older sister. Them being notable actors, directors, and filmmakers do not add notability to her per WP:NOTINHERITED The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Might be notable at some point, but does not seem notable now. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. WP:NACTOR is actually pretty permissive: C1 says you have to have had "significant" roles in multiple notable productions. She gets by that, I think, with This Is 40 and Love. Both roles were supporting, but (IMO) they were significant. A lack of SIGCOV about her performance in either of those roles, however, leads me to recommend deleting. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not seeing a whole lot of coverage of her film career. One of the sources is "Leslie Mann's Daughter Iris, 16, Claps Back After Mom Critiques Her Makeup on Instagram". Freaking EPIC clapback! Wow!!! Surely she'll be notable someday. jp×g 03:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leslie Mann Undoubtedly she'll get roles beyond her family in the not-too-distant future, but for now a redirect to her mother with her roles mentioned is proper. Nate • (chatter) 03:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actress in her own right in popular series and feature films, verifiable so meets . Meets notability.

User:Hildreth gazzard (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2021 (BST)

  • Keep I'm voting Keep just based on the common sense principle. I realize that, by Wikipedia regulations, her notability is at best borderline, but deleting the page now is most likely just delaying the inevitable. That is to say, the page will probably return anyway, in the not-too-distant future. It's possible her career could fizzle out completely, but that doesn't seem likely. She will almost certainly achieve notability by Wikipedia's standards in the upcoming years if she hasn't already. She's also already received plenty of press for her role in Love, and she'll almost certainly receive more coverage for The Bubble and any future roles. I know Wikipedia isn't meant to predict the future, but this particular subject seems like she'll be a no-brainer for inclusion pretty soon and is on the cusp as it stands anyway.Gargleafg (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At this point, the subject of this article does not meet basic guidelines for WP:N in terms of wp:sigcov. Indeed, she is an actress, but not a notable one in any way. inclusion of this article in the project is wp:indiscriminate. GhostDust (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards delete. Any other thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the coverage is just in passing (her being mentioned in articles about family members), or routine coverage of her being a supporting cast member in a certain show/movie. I can't find any article profiling her in detail, so I agree she doesn't meet WP:GNG and hasn't been in any significant enough roles to meet WP:NACTOR. Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Bentley edit

Ross Bentley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in Nov 2017. External links go to websites that are owned by the subject. G-searches produced articles written *by* the subject but no significant coverage *about* the subject. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NMOTORSPORT, drivers who participate in at least one IndyCar Series race is automatically notable. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 04:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As already brought up, Bentley meets WP:NMOTORSPORT as he has "driven in a race in a fully professional series" (CART meets this criterion, while the Rolex Sports Car Series has amateur drivers so it's not "fully professional" but it is still a major discipline). Sourcing is understandably the big issue as the article barely had any for years and self-published references are only available after a quick Google search (which isn't surprising since Bentley is also a writer), but after doing some digging around, I was able to find independent news coverage of his CART career. The article still needs work, but it's a start. Zappa⚡Matic 16:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Full-time CART drivers are exceedingly likely to be notable. Sources may be older and harder to find online. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Ok with draft - you can find it at Draft:Alegría (upcoming film). Missvain (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alegría (upcoming film) edit

Alegría (upcoming 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)

Fails WP:NFF, nothing found to pass GNG. Per NFF, "... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Kolma8 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:FFILM noted, we should ask this question while discussing future films: "does the topic under discussion have the in-depth and persistent coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time so as to be presumable as "worthy of note"?" Kolma8 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Delete for the delete or draftify question, the article creator (and only contributor) has stated they are permanently retired from editing on their user page (Diff), so I don't think the article will be actively improved in the next 6 months. Therefore, delete is the only option. Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With the below in mind I've changed my vote to draftify as the film may meet WP:GNG in the future with the publicity created when it's released, but it doesn't meet that right now. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But he's still editing with his so-called alternative account, BRVAFL.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the notification @Uses x:, and you are right, I am still editing from this secondary account but I only update my drafts, I no longer dedicate myself to creating articles or drafts, I only expand them when I have time not to abandon them. I have no problem with them being drafted, I will expand them.BRVAFL (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Peter Molyneux edit

Eric Peter Molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advanced search for: 
"Eric Peter Molyneux"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

Had been de-proded by creator w/o reason given. A war veteran, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, looked more to me like some kind of WP:ARTSPAM for his book. WP:BEFORE gave me nothing of independent sigcov. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to support the page as it is of significance and should be kept.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have corrected the metadata on the images for them to fit with the copyright guidelines — Yesitsme.wink. 15:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesitisme.wink. (talk • contribs)
    • Is there anything else I can do to stop this from being deleted? Yesitisme.wink. (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment: @Yesitisme.wink.: you can still post a link to the webpage hosting the image (both here and in the article), it's better than nuthin' - wolf 05:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (question actually) aren't bios about people who have been awarded the highest military award for their country (in this case, the Legion of Honour), as reason to keep? - wolf 03:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, not since WP:SOLDIER was deprecated. In any event the Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur is the lowest rank and is now available to "American and British veterans who served in either World War on French soil, or during the 1944 campaigns to liberate France" and so is not a basis for notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur is the highest French order of merit, both military and civil. You can see this on the Légion d'honneur's website (https://www.legiondhonneur.fr/en/page/legion-honor-10-questions/406) Yesitisme.wink. (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thickens... - wolf 02:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yesitisme.wink. read Legion of Honour#Classes and insignia​ Chevalier is the lowest of the 5 classes of Legion of Honour and over 74,000 have been awarded. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, Mzt! It does indeed confirm that the "Legion of Honour is is the highest French order of merit, both military and civil." And, it was established by Napoleon! Very exciting! - wolf 17:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is the lowest rank of the five classes, surely this should be a page on Wikipedia as he has been through quite a lot in his life and this could be shown and represented through a page. His page shows his time in the Referees Association, Shenley Parish Council and now he has just been awarded the Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur. Surely he should be deserving of a page. Yesitisme.wink. (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, not without SIGCOV in multiple RS he shouldn't. I note that the entire Second World War section is completely unreferenced.Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the Second World War section as it had no references. I provided an extract of the Borehamwood Times article about him. I hope this helped. Yesitisme.wink. (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still not enough references for what is written there and he still doesn't have SIGCOV, so my Delete stands. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kazimierz Zakrzewski (military officer) edit

Kazimierz Zakrzewski (military officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advanced search for: 
"Kazimierz Zakrzewski"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed by the creator citing 'keep' verdict on Polish Wikipedia (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2021:04:10:Kazimierz Zakrzewski (rotmistrz)). However, Polish Wikipedia seems much more inclusive then ours for military figures - the main argument there was that being a commander of "the 1st Krechowce Uhlan Regiment with the rank of rittmeister" is sufficient. Well, it may be for pl Wikipedia, but I am afraid it m ay not be enough for English given the subject otherwise fails GNG. The subject received Cross of Independence but is described as the "second highest Polish military decorations", so I have my doubts if it is a sufficient to m ake the subject notable - but it certainly merits some discussion. PS. WP:NSOLDIER was depreciated, and a single award of second-highest award wouldn't meet it anyway ([40]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A cavalry squadron commander, albeit awarded the second highest decoration, has to do something extraordinary to distinguish himself enough for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe the article is sufficiently sourced. It's a keeper for this old brain - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe sources from where the data is taken are not reliable. Doesn't seems notable to me.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Morpho S.A. edit

AfDs for this article:
Blue Morpho S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:ADPROMO and WP:NOTDIARY.

Page is entirely comprised of biographical trivia and promotional details. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copypasted from WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 16:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am just not seeing enough here to make this pass wikipedia's notability guidelines.TheRingess (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Piloti (band). ✗plicit 06:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nenad Antanasijević edit

Nenad Antanasijević (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 redirect to Piloti (band), but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedual keep. Procedural keep since this was nominated by a sock. Feel free to renominate if one so desires. Missvain (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Public School and Junior College, Kottayam edit

AfDs for this article:
Lourdes Public School and Junior College, Kottayam (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. Institution which has no inherent notability and does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. The previous AFD by a sockpuppet, hence the result was speedy Keep. Powerful Karma (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this -- Beccaynr (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Fails NSCHOOL. Kolma8 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per revisions to the article and sources added from national news outlets that create sufficient WP:ORGDEPTH to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. Beccaynr (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the sources you added pass WP:NSCHOOL?AgentCody 01:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this -- Beccaynr (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep without prejudice to a speedy re-nomination since it was nominated by a sockpuppet. Although, there does seem to be some references in the article and I'm suspicious re-nominating it would result in anything other then keep anyway. So if it's not procedurally kept then I'm going with just outright keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that the sources added to the article demonstrate WP:ORGDEPTH Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Appears that an article on the Chelsea China Company could be feasible. If anyone needs Chelsea, West Virginia, for any reason as a reference let me know. Missvain (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea, West Virginia edit

Chelsea, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advanced search for: 
"Chelsea, West Virginia"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

This is kinda a cousin to Blackhorse, West Virginia (AfD discussion) - both appear only on the 1904 topographic maps, and are gone afterwards. There's less coverage for this one than Blackhorse. This doesn't appear in the regional or county histories I linked in the Blackhorse AFD, and it's not in Kenny's book of WV place names. Searching is a bit difficult due to locations named Chelsea in London, NYC, and Massachusetts, but from what I've turned up, this seems to be related to the six kilns the Chelsea China Company constructed on the southern edge of New Cumberland, West Virginia in the 1880s. I didn't see anything calling this a community, so the current article content is both false in claiming that this is a community site and in using the present tense to refer to this thing, and the kilns don't seem to have significant coverage. Not convinced that this is a notable location. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, the here.com data of Bing Maps under the pins retains both Chelsea and Clay, but does not have Blackhorse. Another difficulty in turning up stuff is the historic district of Sistersville, West Virginia that is also on the Ohio River and bounded by Chelsea Street. There is almost enough for an article on the subject that you have identified. Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
40°29′24″N 80°35′56″W / 40.49000°N 80.59889°W / 40.49000; -80.59889[2]

The Chelsea China Company was formally incorporated in 1889 as a pottery manufacturer and clay mining company, and headquartered in New Cumberland, West Virginia.[3] Its factory at New Cumberland had been built the year before in 1888.[4] It produced white earthenware from then until 1894,[5] when it shut down putting 400 people out of work.[6]

Its potters' mark on its ironstone china was a star and a crescent moon with the words "CHELSEA WHITE GRANITE".[5]

The company was bought in 1904 by the Union Potteries Company, which itself had been founded as the Union Co-operative Potteries Company in 1894 in East Liverpool, Ohio.[7] The intent had been to consolidate with a third company at the Chelsea plant, but the same year the plant was destroyed in a fire.[7]

In 1919, now owned by the Warwick China Company based in Wheeling two new kilns were built by Carl B. Harrop, engineer, and the company began to produce hotel ware.[8][9][10] The original 1889 incorporation had been initially scheduled to last until 1939;[3] but in 1926 the company finally went into receivership and its plant with kilns was bought by the Cronin China Company for US$46,000 (equivalent to $791,684 in 2023).[11]

Cross-reference

  1. ^ "Reacting To FlightReacts Before They Were Famous!". YouTube.com. Retrieved 22 April 2020.
  2. ^ Chelsea USGS.
  3. ^ a b Walker 1891, p. 774.
  4. ^ Jervis 1897, p. 76.
  5. ^ a b Ketchum 1971, p. 135.
  6. ^ CR 1894, p. 29.
  7. ^ a b Miner, Bateman & Selby 2001, p. 160.
  8. ^ PGS 1919, p. 25.
  9. ^ CPC 1926, p. 180.
  10. ^ ACSB 1924, p. 23.
  11. ^ TCW 1926, p. 282.

Sources

  • Walker, Henry S. (1891). Acts of the Legislature of West Virginia. West Virginia: Public Printer.
  • Miner, Edward; Bateman, Newton; Selby, Paul (2001). "History of Columbiana County and Representative Citizens". Historical Encyclopedia of Illinois. Vol. 2 (reprinted ed.). Brookhaven Press.
  • "Miscellaneous". The Clay Record. Vol. 5, no. 1. Clay Record Publishing Company. 1894-07-14.
  • Ketchum, William C. (1971). The Pottery and Porcelain Collector's Handbook: A Guide to Early American Ceramics from Maine to California. Funk & Wagnalls.
  • Jervis, William Percival (1897). "THE CHELSEA CHINA Co.". Book of Pottery Marks. Wright.
  • "Chelsea", Geographic Names Information System, United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior
  • Pottery, Glass and Brass Salesmen's Association of America (1919). The Pottery & Glass Salesman. Vol. 20. O'Gorman Publishing Company.
  • Clay Products Cyclopedia. Vol. 3. Industrial Publications, Incorporated. 1926.
  • American Ceramic Society Bulletin. Vol. 3. American Ceramic Society. 1924.
  • National Brick Manufacturers' Association of the United States of America (1926). The Clay-worker. Vol. 85–86. T. A. Randall & Company.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm not convinced by the arguments presented by the !keeps. Perhaps a redireect is warrant. I'm deleting per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Feel free to redirect if warranted. Missvain (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

39th Young Artist Awards edit

39th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advanced search for: 
"39th Young Artist Awards"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

Fails WP:GNG – only source is self-published, and a Google search does not turn up any more reliable sources. I find it especially problematic to include non-notable information when it discusses minors, as this does. While the Young Artist Awards as a whole are notable enough to warrant an article, there is not enough to support articles for each individual ceremony. I'll probably be nominating the other ceremonies soon, but this is my first AfD nom and I want to start slowly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of the past ceremonies have been well-sourced by offline paper sources, but like most craft or niche ceremonies, sources have declined over the years as media sources have chosen to tighten coverage away from them; just because they're sourced by one article, I just don't see the need to throw out the baby with the bathwater and strongly discourage you from further YAA nominations. The YAAs are strongly known as a quality awards ceremony with a solid criteria, not a 'thanks for the money, here's your trophy!' sketchy type of award. And though I'm a strong advocate of child stars having strong protections for en.wiki articles, here, I completely fail to see that there are BLP concerns about the winners of a children's award when the parents or child can easily refuse the honor or nomination on privacy concerns, as the only information given out in these articles are their names (and bluelinks to their articles), and they have indeed allowed that information to be made public for the purposes of the YAAs. Nate • (chatter) 06:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to address two of your points. First, I have worked on awards lists for five separate FLCs, and from my experience, it is significantly easier to find sources for more recent craft or niche awards thanks to the Internet. Publications can now cover essentially whatever they want instead of being limited by how much they can fit into a magazine/newspaper, which leads to wider coverage of awards. If we can't find secondary sources for the 2018 Young Artist Awards when there are sources for very specific awards like the Guild of Music Supervisors and the Location Managers Guild from the same year, that should say something. Second, regarding the idea that many years are "well-sourced", I find that untrue. I pulled up a random list from early in the awards' history (the 6th Youth in Film Awards), and while there are 5 sources, only 1 actually discusses that year's awards (and that is a primary source); the other 4 simply discuss the awards as a whole. The list has a lot of sources, but this is not the same as being well-sourced. To reiterate, I think the Young Artist Awards have enough notability to warrant a page, but discussing each individual ceremony is a bit too crufty. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not every subject can require a featured article. There is no doubt the Young Actors Awards are notable and as such it makes sense to detail each years awards in a seperate article as they are effectively splits from the main article which would make it unwieldy if they were remerged. Deleting the year articles would effectively be dumbing down the information available for no good reason in my view Atlantic306 (talk)
    • Once again, I feel compelled to note: I am not saying the Young Artist Awards are not notable. I agree that the page Young Artist Award should remain. However, this does not automatically give notability to the individual ceremonies. If the individual ceremonies are not receiving coverage, we should not be covering them. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the awards are notable then the winners should be detailed and it is certainly not indiscriminate when it benefits the reader as obvious splits from the main article. If you actually read WP:Indiscriminate you will see that it has no bearing at all on this type of article where the statistics are simply understood and no definition or explanation is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the notability of a topic as a whole does not mean its parts are notable and deserve to be detailed. As a general rule, notability is not inherited. As to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I cited that to show that Wikipedia is not a database for statistics (that's why IMDb exists). The guideline doesn't specifically state this, but the spirit of the guideline conveys that, in my opinion. It is not Wikipedia's job to track every edition of an awards ceremony unless reliable secondary sources also track that information, which, again, is not happening with the Young Artist Awards. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are going too far about inherited notability as the award ceremonies are the whole point of the awards not a divergent topic and the reader would expect to either find the information in the main article or in its split articles which is the current situation. Also, you are applying a dictionary definition to WP:Indiscriminate which doesn't match the content imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Terry Laughlin. Missvain (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Total Immersion edit

Total Immersion (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 topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline." tag appears since December 2012. Wolfch (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Wolfch (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Regardless of whether or not this article should be deleted, the nomination shows a thorough lack of understanding of what is and is not an acceptable reason to nominate an article. It furthermore suggests that the nominator failed to perform WP:BEFORE. "I performed WP:BEFORE and believe the article fails notability criteria" is a valid reason for nominating an article for deletion; "Somebody put up a tag on this obscure article in 2012" is not. Notability tags or a lack thereof are not arbiters of what is or isn't wrong with an article, especially with one as rarely edited as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechnician27 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Terry Laughlin. I can't find any significant sources that go into depth on this concept to meet WP:GNG. Everything seems to be primary or a sales pitch for swimming lessons. It is covered well enough in the Laughlin article. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – The subject does not appear notable enough to warrant its own article, but it should be redirected to Terry Laughlin. Major edits from 2006 to 2012 (especially those from IPs) reek of COI editing that this article was never able to recover from, so even if the subject were notable enough, a legitimate effort to reform the article would require WP:TNT or something very close. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Terry Laughlin Missvain (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lil Loaded#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 01:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6locc 6a6y (album) edit

6locc 6a6y (album) (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 in reliable, secondary sources; WP:NALBUM. I think the artist, Lil Loaded, just squeaks by our notability requirements, but I don't think his albums do. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this album has been a major hit for him and should be mentioned right now since he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoePassive (talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Lil Loaded. The album does not pass WP:NALBUM on its own. The lead single (certified gold) and the singer are notable, and that is all covered in Lil Loaded. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lil Loaded. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alright, you've established that it doesn't pass WP:NALBUM, but does it pass WP:GNG? Americanfreedom (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly not according to the existing citations in the article, and other mentions of it in RS are pretty superficial. The most significant coverage at the moment is to do with Lil Loaded's death, and those sources mention his albums but don't go into much detail. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lil Loaded. Article popped up after the rapper's death on May 31. He had gained some reliable media coverage before that, but this mixtape's notice is largely retroactive in the last three days. His following full-length album, which apparently contains the same viral song, might qualify for an article but this mixtape does not. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please redirect this page, because it does not have encyclopedic notability. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 17:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awaken (2012 film) edit

Awaken (2012 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 film, did not receive significant coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, I couldn't find any critic reviews on the film. The only Google hits are from user-generated sites such as IMDb or retailers like Amazon. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've found passing mention in relation to the director's later work and for the actors in regards to other films, but nothing that's in-depth about this specific early film of Loo's. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails GNG and NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not understanding why this article would be up for deletion - the information is valid, free, and is not misleading in any way. Can you please articulate why you would seek to delete the information?

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. Salted. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Genocide edit

AfDs for this article:
Turkish Genocide (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 a WP:POVFORK of Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction, uses a WP:POV title "Genocide" which is not reflecting any academic consensus on the matter (the vast majority of the world's scholars and academics do not even view it as such), and makes selective use of sources and events to support the WP:OR theory that they constituted an organized genocide. The article has already been created and nominated for deletion in the distant past (2004), and indeed it got deleted, for the simple fact that it violated Wikipedia's rules. The current, 2nd instance of the article, was created in May 2021, by an editor who appears to be WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia and their edits stink of POV agenda [41], again violating numerous Wikipedia's rules. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the nomination to include the missing {{afd2}} template. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 00:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow close and delete This is a prime example of POV editing, where diverse unrelated massacres and other incidents over a long period of time are lumped together with war casualties and migration as results of treaties. The terms 'Muslims' and 'Turks' are conveniently used interchangeably, so that even atrocities against Muslim Albanians can count as part of the "genocide". No source is given for the use of the term 'genocide', which is not even used in the article. Googling the three terms 'Turkish-Muslim massacres', 'Muslim-Turk Genocide' and 'Turkish massacres' used in the lede gives almost only results about massacres against Armenians, against Christians and Jews etc. Adding to this, the selective use of cherry-picked information from sources of very diverse quality. This 'article' is not even worth draftifying. --T*U (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is almost entirely synthesis, in some cases relying on primary sources. None of the sources given discusses the topic, as such, under the broad scope of the article. Searching the more specific "genocide of Turks" turns up nothing on Google Books other than some scattered political pieces. The one apparent qualification to TU-nor's point above about none of the sources using the term seems to be the 1820s Peloponnese case: William St Clair does actually describe the 1820s massacres of Turks in the Morea as "genocide" ([42]). But I can only find one other use of the term in this context in a reliable source, and the topic is already discussed (including St Clair's quote) at Massacres during the Greek War of Independence. Besides the specific term "genocide", a general laundry list of atrocities against Turks throughout modern history would probably be redundant to Anti-Turkish sentiment. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 12:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fork. Srnec (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SYNTH. Sources don't discuss or group the events in this way, and we shouldn't either. Like Nizolam and TU-nor, I tried to dig into this a little with searching variants (the current title is unhelpful for obvious reasons), but I'm still not seeing anything. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV synth/OR nonsense fork of an existing article, aimed at righting great wrongs. Maybe worth salting the title, also, given its history. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support salting. --T*U (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support salting too. (WP:SALT) Since the article Turkish Genocide had 4 articles created about it in Wikipedia (2 articles titled "Turkish Genocide", one article titled "Turkish Genocide by Greeks in the Balkans" and another one titled "Turkish Genocide in Peloponnese"), salting should apply to all.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for salting. Per WP:SYNTH and essentially every other point which has already been raised; I don't have much to add. Have a great day, everybody. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt article, per points given above, and probably block creator as a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blocking creator per points expressed by Kevo327. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether another editor should be blocked isn't something to be decided here. This AfD considers the fate of the article, not its creator. (Just saying, before this turns into a lynch mob situation.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but while the AfD is about the article's fate, it doesn't mean we can't also propose action to be taken against the source of the problem; of course it still is up to the admin's capacity to decide whether an WP:NOTHERE account which had zero positive contributions so far, follows agendas and is creating only problems, may be let on loose.
We aren't here to lynch mobs or determine what action the admins may take against that account on the matter, just we are pointing out to the fact it is this very account behind the creation of this propaganda article, and it is in our best interests to make sure this account won't resort again to such problematic contributions in the future, by understanding the necessity of following Wikipedia's rules. If no whatsoever actions are taken against that account for their disruptive agendas so far, then it is unlikely that the account will change their course for the better in the future. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 07:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a petty attempt of popularising an artificial concept created and promoted by history falsifiers such as notorious revisionist, denier of Armenian, Pontian Greek and Assyrian Genocides Justin McCarthy. The creator of the article U:Turkhistory appears WP:NOTHERE as I see others users already pointed out above. --Armatura (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse content (by merging) then delete -- The wars of the Ottoman contraction were nasty affairs. What the Turks did to Christian rebels was also very nasty. There may be some content in these articles which could usefully be merged to other articles, but none of this was genocide. There certainly seem to have been a series of massacres. Some of these are about sieges, which are also potentially nasty, particularly where a city is taken by storm, in which case the medieval laws of (European) war gave the victors a free hand against the citizens, civilian or military. We cannot however keep this article, which is clearly written from a Turkish POV, without appropriate balancing POVs from independence movements. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unexistant topic and biased page. Also a duplicate of Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction. Super Ψ Dro 18:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaëll dos Santos Borges edit

Yaëll dos Santos Borges (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:NBASKET. Onel5969 TT me 00:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Dutch Basketball League is not one of the major European Leagues. Fails WP:NBASKET and GNG Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. Please note that from WP:NBASKET only follows that the player is not held notable (and even this is then sometimes debated) for the relative unimportant Dutch basketball league. It doesn't make all players automatically NN. This one is. gidonb (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_June_1&oldid=1028217471"