Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< June 10	June 12 >

Guide to deletion

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Peter303x (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenstein Girls Will Seem Strangely Sexy edit

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

No sources found, except arguably this. All current sources are user generated content making much of the article essentially WP:OR. To be clear, I suggest a redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 23:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Mindless Self Indulgence. WP:NALBUM is not being met here. I was also only able to find that Vice article, which I've added. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changing vote to reflect below information. Unfortunately I as well overlooked the reviews that were listed in the album ratings template, as they weren't initially listed as sources and did not appear in my search for other coverage. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence, since the album itself is evidently not notable on its own. -The Gnome (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NALBUMS. Reviews in AllMusic, Rolling Stone, Surf Mechanic, Sputnik Music. There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent. --Ashley yoursmile! 17:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashleyyoursmile: My bad, I didn't find those even though they were in the article. Thanks for bringing it up. I would withdraw the nomination, but according to this I can't due to others not voting Keep. I'll go ahead and turn the EL's to citations, and remove unreliable sources from the article then. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 18:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agreed that it passes WP:NALBUMS via significant coverage from music publications. NJZombie (talk) 20:29, 16 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 00:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Iketani edit

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

Mayor of a town of 21,000 with no other claim to notability. Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just the usual coverage you'd find of a small town mayor. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NPOL and even WP:GNG. Where's the "significant press coverage"? -The Gnome (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. Spudlace (talk) 23:00, 17 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 00:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tilottoma Bangla Group edit

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

Possible covert COI article on a non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up user generated sources and self published sources both of which aren’t categorized as reliable forms of sources. Furthermore the sources used in the article all appear to be announcements. WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met either. Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Companies in Bangladesh do get less media than many other countries but still we need sources. I also have doubts about the claim that this organization has US$2.4 billion in annual revenue, which is a very high amount of money for a Bangladeshi company of any kind. For home furnishing, without a citation for this, and in the absence of media it, I question the accuracy of this submission. We need to insist on routine citations here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry, that’s a great observation. Thanks for pointing that out. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My initial search turns up no independent evidence for the claimed turnover; coverage that exists is simple mentions or PR-related. Article is presently PROMO, no indication there is sourcing that could rectify that problem. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:55, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Episource LLC edit

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

Article is written in an promotional tone. The links provided are mostly PR, and one that isn't PR just mentions them. ... discospinster _talk 22:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This submission is outside the scope of what Wikipedia publishes and does not meet inclusion criteria including WP:GNG. The sources presented are trite and hardly about the company. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of lack of significant coverage in multiple sources. All we have are advertorials such as this, an interview with the CEO (see link), etc. The text, incidentally, has been created by the latest mutation of the single-purpose account: within the space of a few days, we get a flurry of irrelevant contributions (e.g. here, here, here, etc) and then the pay shot of the acticle creation. A clear case of promotional work. -The Gnome (talk) 16:34, 13 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InMarket edit

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

Not sure if the references support notability under WP:CORP. This seems to be a borderline case to me, but I'm still hesitant. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:17, 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 delete. Seddon ^talk 19:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Manuel Mouzo edit

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

Biography of a mayor of a small town of 3,000 people with no other claim to notability. Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the type of routine coverage you'd expect of a local mayor. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also have non-local mayors, Haha :)? As long if the coverage is independent in reliable sources it counts towards notability. GNG doesn’t make a distinction between local and international sources. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing consensus is that local politicians who only get coverage in their immediate region do not normally qualify for a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 18:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give a link to this guideline? SportsOlympic (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is about coverage, it doesn’t matter how big the town of the mayor is. Meeting GNG per multiple coverages in independent sources. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors from any town will always receive some coverage, but coverage here is only local - we generally require more for mayors, especially of very small municipalities, being mayor is not enough. WP:NOTMEMORIAL may also apply since the article was created on the date of his unfortunate passing. SportingFlyer T·C 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing the reasoning, I don’t think many had done a WP:BEFORE. He was not “just” a mayor seeing the amount of coverage he received after his death (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) And he didn’t had only coverage after his death (example, example 2, example 3, example 4, more examples online). SportsOlympic (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these are local press, recycled press releases and run-of-the-mill coverage that any mayor anywhere in the world would get. I don’t think they demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. The mentions in sources generously provided by SportsOlympic are almost all about and evidently caused by his sudden death at a relatively young age (at 54 years old). See also this essay. -The Gnome (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand what you want to point out with the essay, what is for instance the sentence in the essay that the subject is not meeeting?SportsOlympic (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:POLOUTCOMES for how we typically handle mayors of small towns. SportingFlyer T·C 09:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 04:33, 19 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 Nezura 1964. Seddon ^talk 20:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Horde Beast Nezura edit

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

Per WP:NFF: "Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." This unproduced film is non-notable. Most of the sources cited are either user generated sources (blogs) or books but hardly cite a specific page. No sources cited at all for the plot either. Additionally, Nezura's production is already covered in detail in the Gamera, the Giant Monster article with reliable sources. So this article's existence isn't warranted. Armegon (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Armegon (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Armegon (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Armegon (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered it the book The Big Book of Japanese Giant Monster Movies: The Lost Films [[1]] Donaldd23 (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good enough reason to keep. That book mentions lots of "lost" films that don't warrant an article. Nezura fails WP:NFILM. Nezura is already covered thoroughly with verified sources in Gamera, the Giant Monster, so the article isn't needed. Armegon (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with all of that. Just because something is mentioned in another article doesn't mean it doesn't deserve its own article. Coverage in books is definitely an inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. This discussion will determine what other editors think about this. In addition, as this is not a released film, WP:NFILM does not apply. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. WP:NFF does apply because it is an INCOMPLETE film. It clearly states: "Similarly, films produced in the past which were either NOT COMPLETED or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." Armegon (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF and WP:NFILM are different. NFF applies, NFILM does not. You said NFF in the nomination, but then NFILM in your rebuttal. They are not the same. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t matter. Both equally apply because Nezura does not meet the requirements for NFF & NFILM. There’s nothing of significance here that merits an entire article that Gamera’s production section already covers in greater detail and with reliable sources. This article is just WP:FAN, only important toa small number of fans. Armegon (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Gamera, the Giant Monster#Production. - Eiga-Kevien2
- WP:AFDNOTAVOTE and please WP:SIGN your comments properly. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, drafitfy or merge to Nezura 1964. First, a technical note to the nom that WP:DRAFTIFY could have been used instead of an AfD - not that I am saying this would've been better since then I'd not see this. Second. Ja wiki article is longer and has a longer history/significance section, but it is mostly poorly referenced. One reference that may suggest notability is a Japanese book here: [2]. But we need someone proficient in Japanese to judge whether it and other Japanese sources that may exist are helpful here. Third. The Big Book of Japanese Giant Monster Movies: The Lost Films is cited in our article but without a page number, sigh, and sadly, Google Book preview has 'no preview', so copyright makes things hard. Fortunately, there are solutions. The book has a two-page discussion of the movie, which is enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. It's just one source, but I find the discussion there in-depth and indicative of the existence of other sources, sadly, the book has no footnotes or such so it is not possible to guess which (presumably Japanese) sources the author used. While WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is noted, I am reasonably sure that there are (presumably Japanese) sources for this that were used by the authors of the English book (maybe the Japanese book I linked above is one). As such, I think this is likely a notable movie (and I encourage the author to use the English book to expand it further). Ping me if more sources are found and I'll revise my vote, hopefully to a full "keep". PS. Unfortunately, I run into a problem - CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform is WP:SPS (the newest edition of this book is published by something called Bicep Books, but the previous are obvious SPS from CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, and as for Bicep Books I can't find out anything about them, even that they have a webpage, so...). I still think it is likely there are reliable Japanese sources, the English book states that " The horde of dead rats was burned with gasoline and was a highly talked about event in Japanese film circles. Some sources even claim the staff held a memorial service for the rats", "had it not been for Giant Horde Beast Nezura, the monster Gamera would have never been created. Not wanting to waste the elaborate miniatures created for filming" as well as "had it not been for Giant Horde Beast Nezura, the monster Gamera would have never been created. Not wanting to waste the elaborate miniatures created for filming", and the latter can be confirmed by the information present in the article. This is likely a notable "lost film", but currently undersourced or sourced to unreliable platforms (and we have to entertain the possibility that sources that are SPS are hoaxes). If this is not going to be improved, I suggest draftification (or merger to Nezura 1964). I'd like to improve it myself but I think any sources that may help are in Japanese and I am not fluent in it enough to carry out a search. I am disappointed that GScholar search for 大群獣ネズラ yields nothing, and search for だいぐんじゅうネズラ gives [3] which is likely off-topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support to merge. There are very little sources to merit a full article. Information supported by English reliable sources are already covered in Gamera, the Giant Monster but those details can be added to Nezura 1964 as well since it's a film that's been completed and released. And to clarify, Nezura is not a "lost" film. It seems they briefly began production on the rat footage but were shut down by the health department. Additionally, that's as far as its notability goes. So it makes sense to merge it with Nezura 1964. Armegon (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armegon, Good point, the film was never finished, so it is not "lost". Unless the 20m or so of the footage in question is lost, then I guess it would be lost? But I don't recall sources discussing the fate of the footage. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. None of the reliable English sources I've come across have mentioned whether that footage was lost or not. Regardless, it'd be best to merge the article with Nezura 1964. '64 is about the production behind the original Nezura, so it would make sense for the body to shed light on the original that inspired Nezura 1964. Armegon (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should redirect the page to Nezura 1964 (with added production info on this film. - Eiga-Kevin2

I think it will redirect regardless once it merges with 1964. Does this mean you're in support of a merge too? Armegon (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Armegon - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 8:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep Enough coverage exists for keeping. It is has historical significance. Peter303x (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - merge to Nezura 1964 as proposed above. Kolma8 (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge to Nezura 1964 as proposed above.^^^ - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 9:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. A special thank you to Lugnuts and Nigel Ish for improving the article by adding sources. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Allen (cricketer) edit

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

Unreferenced article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep - If your issue with the article is the words "External links" instead of "References", you can always fix that yourself. This was mostly in the days when I was basically transcribing articles from Cricinfo - and once again, the fact that this main text hasn't changed in 15 years is strange. If you feel you have anything to add, please feel free. Deleting players with nearly 200 first-class appearances seems excessive and once again, makes me question our aims. Bobo . 03:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets any reasonable criteria for inclusion. The unreferenced nature of it is unfortunate, but it would be straightforward to find reasonable references, for example his Wisden obituary. I should imagine there are others as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played nearly 200 first-class matches! This mentions his Derbyshire career, along with a obit. in Wisden. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a significant career of nearly 200 matches at the top level, and as others have pointed out there is sourcing available online and in Wisden. Obviously needs improving, but Afd is not clean-up. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Passes WP:NCRIC and played nearly 200 FC matches to receive enough coverage. For more than one month, there were very few AfD nominations of Cricket Articles as User:Storm stopped driving them. But now sad to see that 4meter4 also has taken the job of driving articles to AfD. I noticed 4meter4 also nominated many articles of athletes who participated in Olympics. I don't really understand why some users have no interest in improving article, just their goal is to delete them all. Those users who don't have good idea about cricket and have not significantly contributed to the project should not be rush to nominate articles for deletion. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people who contribute to a project are more willing to destroy it than work collaboratively on it, makes me question their motives. If their motives are, "we're trying to make a better project", how are we doing so by hacking it down? Is it because they have nothing to add? How are substub Test cricketer articles with zero references making it under the net with 17 years of their prose content reading the same? Randomly selecting articles from Category:West Indies Test cricketers yields Lionel Birkett, Adrian Griffith (cricketer), whose article talks about nothing other than the game in which he was involved, Rajendra Chandrika - ditto, Dave Mohammed, an unreferenced substub - which ironically I created, 16 years ago, and others. You would think those who were so keen to delete had anything to add in order to improve content. Bobo . 09:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you look at my edit history, I have many years of productive editing on wikipedia. My main concern here is WP:SIGCOV. Fortunately, other editors more familiar with cricket are doing a good job pointing to sources in this discussion, so it's likely this article will not only pass this AFD, but in the end will have better referencing in the article than before this AFD. It's a win for the article, which is pretty awful in construction at the moment, and therefore a win for the encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a personal comment, forgive me. I was just making a point about the project as a whole. If we're not trying to create a complete project, why are we here? Bobo . 17:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Note to nominator: the article was never unreferenced; external links are often sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No external links are just that, external links. What we call things and where we place them matters. Readers and other editors can not assume other contributors got their information from listed external links. Additionally, external links often do not meet the standard for sources at WP:Verifiability.4meter4 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The external links in this article were very obviously placed there as reliable reference sources, meeting the requirements of WP:V. If you have issues with this article structure, fix it (but be aware, there are thousands of articles that will require your attention!) – but tagging as "no sources" is inappropriate and, as Rugbyfan22 noted above, AFD is not clean-up. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:UNSOURCED at WP:V, which specifically states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution." All material lacking inline citations per policy is "unsourced". A list of external links simply doesn't count. Further, the policy is clear that all content without an inline citation can be challenged and removed or tagged as unsourced. The burden of removing those tags or restoring content is on the editor who added the information and must be done with the accompaniment of a supporting inline citation. 4meter4 (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15 years ago when I set this and other such articles up, this references system wasn't how it was done. The fact that the article had received barely any attention for 15 years is by the by. And in any case, the "references" for most articles would read almost exactly the same as the external links, so it probably doesn't make much of a difference. If you want to change all articles which read "External links" and reference every statistic to the same source(s), that's fine. Would that have solved the problems with previous AfD discussions? That's not my question to answer. If the issue with previous mass-AfD nominations was not "this article is unacceptable" but "please change the external links to references", then none of this would have had to occur all along. Bobo . 17:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice sidestep. You wrongly tagged the entire article as unsourced and claimed the same here; I note you have since placed an appropriate refimprove banner on the article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did after another editor added the obituary to the article; making the article no longer completely unreferenced which it was before the obit was added. The statistics in the table also were sourced by the subscription access cricket website with an inline citation. It wasn’t a side step but a response to improved referencing based in policy.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of this complaining is not helpful, and the article did (and does) have serious issues at demonstrating GNG as well as overall verifiability. At the time I nominated the article, the only visible external link was [4], which is essentially a statistical table of content which does not support the prose of the article; and is routine coverage which does not rise to level of sourcing required by WP:SIGCOV. The CricketArchive link is a subscription access service, which per WP:External links should not be included in external links because it is not visible to the general public. Such material can be used as cited sources per policy, but that is not how it was used here. For those claiming the external links somehow verified the article, I'm just not seeing it. They didn't. The article still is largely unsourced and unverified. This nomination was therefore appropriate per policy at WP:AFD and WP:Verifiability. The fact that such issues are widespread in cricket articles is not my problem, and points to systemic verifiability issues in this area on the encyclopedia that apparently leaves a large percentage of cricket articles at risk for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking articles to AfD as and when you find them is not the way to sort out problems. If you want us to change the source(s) of every single article from Cricket Archive to Cricinfo because Cricket Archive is behind a(n) (easily negated) paywall, please let us know in good time rather than nominating tens of thousands of cricket articles. If you want us to find further sources before you make these decisions, please let us know in advance. Bring these issues to the appropriate channel(s) first before nominating tens of thousands more articles as you happen upon them. Bobo . 18:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tens of thousands? As far as I can recall, I've only ever nominated three cricket articles for deletion. I've hardly made a habit of it, and I don't plan on making it a habit of it. I will however use the AFD process when it's warranted. I'm still not convinced this article meets GNG, simply because only the obituary rises to the level of significant coverage from what I can tell. Multiple articles of that level of significance are needed. Statistical tables in cricket fancruft websites aren't significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a theoretical remark based on the number of cricket articles on the site. Not a personal statement - please understand. There are still dozens of unreferenced international players which need eyes upon them. Bobo . 18:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you seem to be blaming me personally for the practices of your project which are not in line with written policy, and then when I point it out attack me personally, as if I am a trouble maker for pointing out the errors in your projects widespread practice. WP:ELREG states A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article (see § Official links) or the link is part of an inline reference (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). It's not my fault that your project decided to ignore that policy and break it systemically in cricket articles. That just shows blatant disrespect from your project towards our governing policies as an encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more point, other editors can't simply swap out a subscription service source from an eternal link into a sources section. For one, we can't see what content, if any, is verifying the article in its current state. Two, subscription sources are supposed to be used only in inline citation right after the content its verifying (See WP:ELREG and WP:UNSOURCED). Trying to throw the burden back on me, who doesn't have access, isn't within policy. Further, WP:UNSOURCED is clear that the burden of sourcing of content is on the person who added it and no one else. Telling others they have to do the work of sourcing material that isn't sourced isn't within policy.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"That just shows blatant disrespect from your project towards our governing policies as an encyclopedia"... bit like nominating a player with 193 first-class appearances and 500 wickets shows blatant disrespect to the Cricket Project. StickyWicket (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any excuse to stop our project from being as complete as possible - pursuant to subject-specific guidelines - is against our basic goal as far as I'm concerned. I can't imagine why anyone would want it any other way... anyone? If we really were talking a "quality over quantity" argument, we wouldn't still have single-sentence Test cricketer articles after 15+ years. Why can't those so keen to delete articles work on those instead? Wouldn't you consider that more productive? Or is it just because you have nothing to add and it takes less effort to insert a "send to AfD" template? If we were all working towards the same goal, these conversations would not be necessary. Bobo . 00:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To phrase it slightly more gently, let me ask a question of those members of the project who are so keen to delete. Why aren't you sending Test cricketer articles to AfD too, for being unreferenced and unsourced to non-database sources - or even unreferenced altogether? What if someone who knew nothing about the subject and saw the same, were to do so? I can imagine little more than a significant lambasting - ironically from the same characters. Bobo . 00:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I didn’t break any policies. I followed them. Also, please don’t make WP:OWN statements. There’s no rule requiring notification to the cricket project before nominating a cricket article at AFD. The attitudes of this group are so hostile, I am not likely to bother communicating with your project at all in future anyway.4meter4 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth checking that there truly are zero sources available before you do anything which ends up with debates like this, surely. Just let us know that any article does not pass your own personal criteria for inclusion, and we'll likely be able to do something about it as we will have more idea where to find information. Being in a state where we can only do anything about it while a debate is going on, defeats the object. Want us to work at finding more references? Let us know.

The irony about making comments about "ownership" of content when most of the articles I initiated which have been sent to deletion had prose content written by myself and myself alone. The fact is that the cricket project has turned against itself like Frankenstein's monster. That is not something we should be proud of. The same is true of the disgusting level of disrespect shown towards 02blythed, Lugnuts, and AA, and their contribution history. Bobo . 08:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd saying nominating a cricketer with 500 first-class wickets and 193 appearances is "hostile". StickyWicket (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Truly one of the most pathetic and lazy nominations I have ever seen. StickyWicket (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems to just be a nomination to argue about CricketArchive as a source, something that is perfectly permissible. Played almost 200 first class matches, no evidence the nominator has even tried to do a WP:BEFORE. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, with ~200 top-class appearances. But it is in a bit of a mess, and I think the nominator is acting in good faith, although there are obvious alternatives to AfD, such as bringing it to the WP Cricket Project's attention. Johnlp (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject comfortably meets WP:NCRICKET and moreover WP:GNG, though the article's text is rather messy. -The Gnome (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is some coverage [5], [6] in old newspapers, and as he comes from pre-Internet era, I would expect lots more to exist in offline historical newspapers where available. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 4meter4, to rearrange comments on the page in chronological order rather than by thread of conversation makes it look like the members in question are talking to themselves. The reason we put replies where we do is so that we know who is talking to who - not so that we know who leaves the first or second comment. Bobo . 16:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You interrupted my comments in the same conversation thread, distorting the meaning of my statement and the flow of dialogue. I didn't appreciate that; that's why I put things down further where they should have been posted in the first place. I'd appreciate it if you not comment to me any further. I am feeling harassed. See WP:STICK.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harassed? Sure. Anyone who is going to leave an AfD template on a cricketer who has made 200 first-class appearances is likely to have questions asked about them somewhere along the way. Please, if you find any other articles you dislike, don't take them to AfD just to get them seen by others. Put them in the appropriate place where you can request they be cleaned up. Bobo . 16:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated this multiple times. Everyone can see your posts. You don't need to repeat yourself and keep commenting. This is the definition of harassment. Please stop.4meter4 (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until you can provide us with reassurance you will take this advice, I do not believe you have taken it in. Bobo . 16:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:POV Pushing and read Wikipedia:Civility. We have a difference of opinion, and that's ok. I don't have to agree with you, and I am not sure why you feel the need to hound me as its clear there is a building consensus to keep. I can have a minority opinion and thats ok. If you keep this up I will be taking this to WP:ANI. Please leave me alone.4meter4 (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone how to arrange comments on a discussion page is not "POV-pushing". This conversation is becoming strange. Bobo . 16:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are clearly out there, even if they aren't on-line - I have just added info on the '64 season from the 1965 Wisden, and at least similar levels of detail should be available from Wisden or from newspapers for other seasons. This should ensure that GNG is met.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obvious pass of WP:NCRIC. If Wisden isn't WP:RS for cricketers' biographies (link), I don't know what is. 500 wickets at 22.43 in FC matches isn't chopped liver. It's like saying an MLB pitcher with an ERA of only 3.00 over a 10-year career is WP:NN. I'm close to calling this nomination frivolous. Narky Blert (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taking 10 wickets in a match is roughly comparable to completing 9 innings while conceding one or no runs. Allen did it three times. I'll go further, and will call this nomination frivolous. Narky Blert (talk) 20:24, 15 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. There is is a clear consensus for this, however I want to note that references seem thin on the ground and it justifying its own existence feels tenuous. Creation of a single WHA trophies article and merging into that at some point in the future seems to be a more natural home for this but will leave that for a future discussion to handle. Seddon ^talk 20:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Baldwin Trophy edit

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

Delete I see only one source. I really don't think that the source that was given would be a reliable source. Seems like no indication of notability. Fails GNG. Hayleez (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into World Hockey Association#Trophies and awards. It looks like all the trophies have their own short articles to manage the size of the main article. I imagine a thorough search of 1970s newspapers would turn up more references. pburka (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have the NHL's Jack Adams Award article, so why not the WHA's counter-part. In fact many WHA award articles exist on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, GoodDay. If Wikipedia might has unreferenced articles this does not mean we should keep another unreferenced one. -The Gnome (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The award existed, therefore it needs an article. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major league level professional ice hockey trophy is notable. The current citation in the article is a sports encyclopedia which is reliable. Other online sources are available such as hockeydb.com and as mentioned above newspapers would be a good source too. The article needs improvement and such information exists to do so. Flibirigit (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a more legitimate source, which covers each specific year. As noted the trophy, and others from the WHA, are legitimate, and other sources should be out there as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Kaiser matias. Listing an item, such as a book, under a bibliographical section without an inline citation is not proper sourcing. -The Gnome (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are inline citations; the book itself is listed in the "Bibliography" section, while the citations themselves are in the "References" section, and all link back to the book noted. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The search in the news brings forth nothing; same goes for the search in newspapers; and the search amidst books brings up titles about something else with a passing mention of out subject, certainly not proof of independent notability. It might be notable among hockey fans but we need sources. -The Gnome (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable trophy of a top level professional hockey league. -DJSasso (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I added a couple more sources but would not be opposed to moving the content into a single WHA trophies article.18abruce (talk) 11:53, 15 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 articles content is covered in other articles and is in many instances derived from them which renders the need for a merge here as moot. Seddon ^talk 20:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-paganism influenced by Saint Ambrose edit

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

Too specific and brief to deserve a standalone article. The topic should ideally be brought up at Ambrose simply, and is already covered more properly elsewhere, for example at Massacre of Thessalonica#Aftermath. I did a WP:BEFORE (see talk) and found some reliable sources, and these suggest that the limited source material used here (three are simply copied from another's footnote and a fourth is a deadlink) is outdated. I'm not quite on board with merging since there's little of value here is and the current title makes for a strange search term. Avilich (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I proposed to move the article due to the weird title. However, now I realise that most sources don't use the term "antipaganism" and that this topic is better covered in Ambrose article. (t · c) buidhe 19:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a separate article here. Srnec (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree there is no need for a separate article. While I do think a well-sourced discussion of this topic would be a good thing for the encyclopedia to have somewhere, I think I will work on it and add it to the main article on Ambrose. It doesn't deserve to be more than a subsection. Since most of this article is inaccurate, and heavily non-NPOV, I vote to Delete.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "influenced by" is just weasel words. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even worth a redirect, sorry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Saint Ambrose and other relevant articles. The nominator, Buidhe, Srnec, and Jenhawk all seem to agree that the topic should be covered by Wikipedia, but not as a stand-alone article. That alone means that merger and not deletion is the correct procedure. The claim that the sources are all outdated should be treated skeptically, since the field is classics, and most of the sources cited have publication dates from the last forty years (plus one from 1961, and—gasp—one from 1933! Sacrilege!). Actually I'm astonished that Gibbon isn't cited here, since he's still an important writer on this period of Roman history, and on this theme in particular. It doesn't matter if sources from the last twenty years—oh, wait, the last seventeen, so we can exclude the 2003 one—say that Gibbon and everybody else who wrote before them was off their rocker and didn't know what they were talking about, or even if the entire universe of classicists agrees that it's indisputable, scientific fact. If Saint Ambrose, Theodosius, and Symmachus come back to life and testify before a choir of angels on live network television that everybody before 2004 got it wrong, what was previously believed and written about this topic remains notable and relevant.

That doesn't determine the weight that should be accorded it or which sources should be cited (although, as I said, Gibbon at least seems like a given) or what conclusions are drawn from all of the sources put together. You can still say that everybody before 2004 was wrong, you can write it entirely in your own words, and you don't have to keep any particular source just because it's in this article—but you can't wallpaper over the fact that scholarship used to contend something other than what scholarship after 2003 says, and that means you can't delete this article without going through the merger process.

TL:DR: even if reliable sources disprove everything the sources cited by this article say, if the topic should be discussed in other articles, then the article has to be merged, not deleted, whether or not you keep any of the text or sources as written. P Aculeius (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this.★Trekker (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This post requires a careful rebuttal since its author ignores or misrepresents my points and doesn't seem to have his definitions in order. First of all, I already made a careful case for deletion (WP:BEFORE), with reliable sources, on the article's talk page. P Aculeus shows no awareness of it – though I stated it explicitly in the nomination – else he would've known that I do not, in fact, dismiss most of the sources as simply outdated. I simply note that many of them are not actually fully referenced or even used, and are instead copied from another's footnote; and that another is a deadlink; and I go no further than claiming that the article's single sourced excerpt is incorrect and outdated.

Second, 'merging' means copying some content and pasting elsewhere. It's not clear how some editors thinking the topic doesn't deserve a separate page means "that merger and not deletion is the correct procedure". Less clear even is the functional difference between deletion and merging in this article's case in particular, given the paucity of referenced material. The correct thing to ask here is whether there's anything of value in this article worth taking to others. In the talk page WP:BEFORE, I make the specific argument that this isn't the case here, with reliable sources and everything. P Aculeius had several days to go there and prove me wrong; this he did not do, and instead waited for me to open this AfD so he could cast confusion on the issue with an unnecessarily long and misleading rationale.

I sincerely doubt Aculeius or Trekker have any interest in improving this category of articles. They had two separate chances to make contributions to this one in particular and they both refused. I (and at least one other editor who voted delete above) have actually gone through the trouble of reading and consulting sources before passing judgement on the nomination. As long as the case for supposed merging remains improperly justified, this is just really a delete vs redirect debate. I ask that the overseeing admin take this into account when closing this discussion. Avilich (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're reading what I've been saying—I don't have to prove anything, or improve the article in order to prevent its deletion. The difference between merger and deletion is the difference between treating the subject in a more appropriate place and wiping away all trace of it. You're not satisfied with the content of the article, and that means that this should never have been a deletion discussion. You don't like the sources, you don't like the citations, you don't like the conclusions—but if the topic still needs to be treated somewhere then this is not a subject for deletion. You opened this discussion at CGR and I responded there, saying much the same thing as I am here, but you didn't seem to be any more receptive then. This nomination says, "these suggest that the limited source material used here (three are simply copied from another's footnote and a fourth is a deadlink) is outdated." That's the opposite of saying "only one source is outdated". But again, the state of sourcing in an article is a content issue, and deletion is about whether the subject should be treated in Wikipedia at all. Please stop trying to shift the focus to my supposed ignorance, lack of awareness, desire to misrepresent your position, desire to cast confusion with long and misleading rationales, lack of interest in improving articles, and sundry other accusations. P Aculeius (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD vote should be straightforward: vote merge if you think something specific in the article needs to go somewhere else; keep if you'd like to keep the article; and delete if you think an article misleads readers, has little of worth, or doesn't otherwise comply with WP policy. It means absolutely nothing that an article's specific issue just happens to be related to content or whatever. Wikipedia policy reasonably expects you to take responsibility for your suggestions to an article, rather than simply sit down and demand other editors do things on your terms while you sit down and do nothing. For example, a keep voter shouldn't declare an article needs to kept while making no suggestion as to how this can happen or expecting other editors to do the work for him.

So, I'll ask again, in what way can this article be merged, and how will it be different from deleting or redirecting? Give me a real answer, one that shows that your suggestion is superior and will have a concrete and noticeable impact on Wikipedia, rather than simply weaseling your way out of the argument with nonsense like 'it's content related' without giving any further explanation, and 'I don't have to prove anything'. Avilich (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, the burden is on you to show that absolutely nothing in this article is worth saving, including the point of view and any sources already cited, or which could reasonably be found and added (since inadequate sourcing, or even a complete lack of sourcing, is not a reason to delete an article). Several people in this discussion, including you, seem to think that the topic of this article needs to be treated somewhere in Wikipedia—just not as a stand-alone article. Therefore, the burden is yours to ensure that such treatment exists in one or more appropriate articles, such that the loss of this article doesn't leave readers without any information about the topic. The mere potential for this topic to be discussed elsewhere at some future point is inadequate, and you cannot insist that somebody else do the job or else agree to the deletion of the article with that job remaining undone. And what I've just described is the merger process, not deletion. As the person merging the articles, you have broad discretion to determine what parts of this article goes elsewhere: as I said, no particular text, no particular sources, no particular conclusions are required. You just have to make sure the topic is covered adequately—not brilliantly, not comprehensively—just not pro forma, but enough so that blanking this article's page doesn't leave readers without the resource provided by this article. P Aculeius (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can we show that it needs deleting? I will help, because I 100% know it should not be merged as it currently exists. It needs rewriting from beginning to end to bring it NPOV with good quality RS. I have a suggestion. I will do it. I am happy to. Give me a week and I will rewrite it. You can all check my work - I know buidhe will and there is no one better. I will do it in my sandbox and put it on the talk page at Ambrose as "Suggestion for new section". Everyone can see and comment on it there. Then when we have consensus we can publish it as a section on the Ambrose article. Then we can delete this separate article completely. Everyone's needs will be met. How's that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're describing merger, not deletion. I don't know why I have to keep saying that. Nobody is telling you that they don't trust your writing. Nobody is asking for you to draft it in your sandbox and wait for approval. Nobody is demanding the right to comment on and approve your work—if anybody doesn't like it, they're free to edit it as needed. You do not need permission to do what needs to be done, and nobody is asking you to seek it. This is not about whether your point of view satisfies everyone—it's about making sure that you take steps to incorporate this topic where it needs to go—you do not need to copy and paste the contents anywhere. This is not about the contents of the discussion—it's about having the discussion where you already agreed it needed to go, and about recognizing that this should never have been a discussion about article deletion—it's always been about merger. P Aculeius (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius and Jenhawk777: The Altar of Victory affair is currently treated at better length and with sources in Gratian, Valentinian II, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, and, of course, in Ambrose. Regarding Ambrose's influence on Theodosius, most of the relevant section in the article is copied verbatim from Ambrose#Imperial relations, and a better overview is given Massacre of Thessalonica#Aftermath and Theodosius I#Aftermath. This page also gives a better treatment of both topics. This covers the entirety of the article I nominated, and copying the content elsewhere would merely duplicate it or lower the quality of the page onto which this would be merged. Avilich (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if extreme skepticism is the issue, you should've made this clear form the outset. Not to mention how easy it is to access these pages and see for yourself. Avilich (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P Aculeius For things that I believe might be controversial, it has become my habit to write it, post it on talk, ask for discussion, and then publish when there is consensus. I have done it multiple times. It is a consideration that I give, voluntarily, to avoid stepping on people's toes and producing controversy and avoid edit wars. It isn't about obtaining approval. It's about establishing consensus and being considerate of others. It is simply a personal choice and not something I ask of anyone else. I offer it here as a mediating position between the extremes.

I do realize I am talking merger now, but this includes the necessary deletion of this particular article in my mind, so that has not changed. I do absolutely disagree that this is not about content. Not only is it ALL about content for me, it really should be for everyone. This article is the definition of Junk. The content, as it is, should not be on WP anywhere. It's bad. It should not be merged as it is. So then, how can the topic be merged into the main article on Ambrose with the entire content deleted? Avilich is right on target in saying better material on the topic is already in Wikipedia, however, imo none of them are a full or sufficient discussion. Therefore, I do think a section on this topic should be added to Ambrose, but I do also believe this particular article's content should be gone in its entirety. It should be nowhere on WP. Does that not qualify as deletion? I think we are talking both things here - at least I am. The topic needs merging. The content needs deleting. Do both in whatever order you see fit, and I will support you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P Aculeius: Avilich's assertion that this is about content deserves a response: An AfD vote should be straightforward: vote merge if you think something specific in the article needs to go somewhere else; keep if you'd like to keep the article; and delete if you think an article misleads readers, has little of worth, or doesn't otherwise comply with WP policy... So, I'll ask again, in what way can this article be merged, and how will it be different from deleting or redirecting? The question is now mine as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger doesn't require you to keep any language, any sources, any opinion—you do not have to copy anything—the deletion process does not involve adding, incorporating, or modifying anything in other articles. You nominate an article for deletion when there is nothing to do anywhere else with any other article—when an article has no merit, no reason to exist either by itself or as part of other articles. Write whatever needs to be in other articles as it needs to be written, then follow steps 2 and 3 from WP:PROMERGE (if you're rewriting all of the text, bypass step 1; otherwise copy it as is and then edit it to follow step 1). A deletion ignores all of these steps, and effectively erases the article and all its history, all of its contributions, and all the information about its authorship; that's not how this is supposed to work, even when you're completely overhauling an article. P Aculeius (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P Aculeius It sounds like what you are most concerned about is that the history of this article not be lost. Okay. We may actually be getting somewhere here. If you can help me wrap my mind around the idea of blanking the article, while somehow also merging it, I will support that. Do I understand you correctly? Is your suggestion that I first write the topic by creating a new section in Ambrose, then go blank this article, and only then merge it with that section? Would that even work? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost how the merger process is supposed to work—if you just follow the steps in the guide I linked, you'll meet all of the requirements. Step 1 indicates copying the contents first, and then editing them, but if you really don't want to add them to another article as-is, I don't think it'll matter if you write what needs to be written about the topic, then change the existing article into a redirect from merge, using the templates provided in the merger procedure. Adding what needs to go in other articles is part of merging—not a separate activity. But it doesn't really have to be the full contents of this article, or any part of it verbatim, at least not for more than a few seconds while you're editing it down to what you want it to be at a bare minimum. And from there you can expand the section up to what it needs to be. But none of the existing language needs to stay. Make it what it needs to be so that people looking for this topic can find what they need to know, and so that this topic continues to exist in some form in some logical place. P Aculeius (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a waste of time. People will find what they 'need' to know in those articles I already linked, not here. If Jenhawk wants to write about this, she can go on any of those aside from this one. This article is a useless middle man and you know it. Avilich (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If an article's content is poor, and if an article adds nothing of value that others already do, it automatically qualifies for elimination by the universal laws of common sense. You're not disputing that the entire article either forks content from others or is outright misleading; so, if there's nothing to merge to begin with, your idea of merging is already de facto deletion, and is just pointless, ridiculous prevarication on your part designed (intentionally or not) to cast confusion on an issue – the unsuitability of the article – that you yourself don't even dispute. There's nothing in Wikipedia policy or common sense that requires editors to recycle everything that's ever been written or recorded as history. You're making stuff up. You're just WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:NOTGETTINGIT, and I again ask that the administrator who closes this take this into account. Avilich (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P Aculeius This seems a little like gaming the system and is not how merging is intended to work. By advocating this approach, it seems to me that you have basically agreed that there is nothing in the article worth saving. If this article has nothing of merit that needs to be transferred into another article, shouldn't we get past our emotions, bite the bullet, and delete it? Then I can take my time - or you can - and write something more suitable to an encyclopedia in the main article. I was willing to try your approach, but I am uncomfortable with its backdoor shenanigans. I'm sorry, but it isn't copacetic for you to make this call based on wanting to keep a record of your contributions without regard for what's best for the encyclopedia. It is the merit of the article, and only that, that matters. Don't take it personally. I have journeyed my way through merger and am back to delete. It's the best option for the encyclopedia. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you've checked the article history, I think you'll find I haven't made any significant contributions to it—I have no attachment to it and am not trying to preserve my own work. I'm saying that this is how Wikipedia policy is supposed to work, and you seem unwilling to follow the correct procedures, even though you have repeatedly stated that the topic of this article needs to be treated in other articles. I've had enough of being accused of all kinds of underhanded actions and wicked motives for which there is absolutely no evidence—just do what Wikipedia policy clearly and unambiguously says you're supposed to do, or ignore policy and just delete anything that doesn't agree with your point of view. It would have taken ten minutes to follow the correct procedure, and yet you've spent hours and hours resisting it because you don't see anything of value in sources or scholarship that you feel is outdated or misplaced. Wikipedia policy is clear: you don't get to delete stuff because you disagree with it. You don't delete points of view because somebody comes along later and gives an opposing point of view. Even if you can absolutely prove that something that was widely believed for centuries was wrong it is still relevant, and you do not get to pretend that everybody knew the truth all along—which is what deleting articles because you think they've been proved wrong is doing. Wikipedia policy tells you to do a very simple thing, and you're refusing to do it because you just want to erase this article from existence without leaving a trace—who's not getting past their emotions? P Aculeius (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff gets deleted all the time because a large enough number of editors don't like it, and there's nothing in wp policy supporting your definition of a merge. Whether an outdated point of view should be deleted or discussed depends on the context and on the POV itself: in this case it's brief and inconsequential, and dealt with elsewhere, so your excessive focus on it is of service to nobody. Avilich (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose -- We do not seem to have a single article on the Christian campaign to eliminate paganism from the Roman Empire. That is an important topic which deserves to have a single overarching article. The present article is focused on St Ambrose and events of and after 391, but the topic starts with an imperial decree of 380 and ends with the attempt of Julian the Apostate to restore paganism. It may be that this requires TNT, i.e. delete and start again, but I would hope it is not that bad. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: you're mistaken. We do have a single article on the Christian campaign to eliminate paganism from the Roman Empire, and that's persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire. It's not that overarching and the relevant information all fits (for the moment) in there. The other articles you refer to are low-quality forks (this one included) copied from somewhere else in 2011 and written in very sloppy fashion. A large-scale reorganization and cleanup of the aforesaid articles is needed, and this includes deleting some. Calling this a TNT is misleading because you wouldn't be blowing it up and starting over: in case you missed it from above, there are already several articles which already fit the purpose you want to repurpose this one into, so this is already started. I ask that you reconsider with this in mind. Avilich (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good sourced material here that would be lost if we deleted this article and its history... remember our copyleft requirements? Merge, repurpose, rename maybe, but don't delete. Andrewa (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: The only two pieces of sourced material are already used in those many other articles I linked above. This article's contents were themselves copied over from various other pages, if you look at the edit history. Your concerns are already addressed, please pay attention. Avilich (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address the argument at all. The history still needs preserving, and there is no cost involved in preserving it. And adding an insult to your post does not make it any more logical. Andrewa (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect into Ambrose#Attitude towards pagans. We have a messy cluster of articles and subarticles on the extinction of polytheism in the Roman Empire, and they do need the pruning and cleanup that Jenhawk and Avilich are carrying out. This is one of those articles, and although Ambrose's influence on the opposition to polytheism is often discussed by the sources, I doubt the coverage is enough to justify an article separate from that on Ambrose (Ambrose#Attitude towards pagans has plenty of room for expansion).

But my understanding of the deletion policy is the same as that of P Aculeius: when the article has RS coverage and a clear target for merging, the article is merged instead of being deleted, unless it's a WP:TNT situation such as copyright infringement. In practice, almost none of the merged article's content may end up in the merge target, and the only difference is that the title of the merged article survives as a redirect. In any case, the difference between deletion and merging-while-preserving-virtually-no-content is mostly semantic and will have virtually no effect on the experience of Wikipedia's readers, so I don't see the point of bickering over it. A. Parrot (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: if you acknowledge that merger = de facto delete and redirect, why do you vote so regardless? The practical effect of this is to create an artificial and unnecessary lack of consensus that will cause an admin to relist this for another week(s) over a mere technicality. WP:BURO is applicable here. Avilich (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have !voted "redirect", but in cases like these, that's what closing administrators tend to go with. (They "assess consensus" and don't simply count votes.) But technically speaking, leaving a redirect behind isn't deletion—deletion wipes an article from public view, and only administrators are able to see what it once contained. A. Parrot (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for Avilich and Jenhawk: I don't often participate in AfD discussions and can't claim to be familiar with all the ins, outs, and unwritten norms surrounding deletion, but what usually happens in my experience is that an article like this will end up as a redirect rather than being technically deleted. That means casual readers almost certainly won't see the redirected article, but its history will still be visible to anyone who goes looking for it (i.e., some small subset of experienced editors). Try looking at the article history for Auset; the content of that article was worse than the one we're discussing. There is one argument for deleting anti-paganism influenced by Saint Ambrose that didn't apply to Auset, that it's a title people are unlikely to look for. (Auset is a rare but genuine alternate spelling of Isis's name, whereas the Ambrose article title isn't a construction that readers are likely to come up with on their own.) But this article has existed for a decade, even though it received very little attention in that time, and long-standing articles aren't usually deleted unless there's a stronger reason to do so. A. Parrot (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the section in Ambrose on attitudes to paganism. Furius (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per P Aculeius and A. Parrott's arguments, which I shall avoid repeating or summarizing for the sake of space. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining my delete !vote above, neither this article nor its history seem to me to be worth archiving, but merge is fine, so if we can come to a consensus to merge, count me as part of it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:49, 19 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 Pločnik. No need to discuss such an obvious duplicate, WP:BOLD redirect is appropriate. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 23:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pločnik (Prokuplje) edit

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

Appears to be a duplicate of Pločnik, can be merged/deleted. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Vijay edit

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

establish notability Chief Minister (Talk) 18:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 18:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are many sources in the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR. Significant roles in Odu Raja Odu, Uma Maheswara Ugra Roopasya, and Anbirkiniyal as the cited reviews note. Adequately sourced. -- Ab207 (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several reliable sources covering the subject exists on the page. Neutral Fan (talk) 16:10, 12 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. This was heading for a WP:SNOW deletion, and the fact of it being a recreation after a previous deletion discussion means there is even less reason to wait. JBW (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Angel My Teacher edit

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

Reliable sources have no significant coverage and no evidence of satisfaction Chief Minister (Talk) 18:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree to the nomination, only source is IMDB which is not suitable per WP:IMDB, however, the article has only been up for a few minutes. I will revisit later and change this to delete if there have not been any changes. Given the outcome of the last AfD for this article, that seems unlikely. A S U K I T E 18:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Update: changed to delete per above, per nom and in agreement with Ab207, G4 may have been prudent in this case and it does not meet WP:NFILM. A S U K I T E 23:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think it can be improved in draftspace, but it needs a lot more references and content before it can be put back into mainspace. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 18:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NFILM. Draftifying is not helpful because the film is already deemed non-notable which is unlikely to change without new sources. WP:G4 may be applied. Ab207 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still no evidence of significant coverage, failing WP:GNG, and does not meet any of the criteria for WP:NFILM Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Isn't this G4 speediable, even? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I see no significant changes in the article, in fact this version looks more or less the same to the one deleted in 2020 as a result of a discussion. The times of india is probably the only reliable source that has talked about this film. It failed WP:NFILM before, and still does so now. Should be speedily deleted under WP:G4.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:08, 14 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. Procedural close as article has since been speedy deleted per A7. - (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DZYT-TV edit

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

Hoax? I can't find any valid sources for this TV station. The only hit that isn't a WIkipedia mirror is a Fandom Wiki which appears to be written by the same person as this article. Looks like a failure of WP:V and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete hoax. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone didn't get the memo about the ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy...otherwise, yes, false. Nate • (chatter) 19:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a real station Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info note that the user who created this article added the entry at List of ABS-CBN Corporation channels and stations#VHF. That entry must be removed and this article be deleted as a hoax. I never heard of an ABS-CBN station originating from Laguna. Even if this is true this will fail notability. But this is just a hoax article worthy to be sent to wastebasket. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unref'd likely hoax. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 13 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anal Biswas (Politician) edit

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

advertising or promotion Chief Minister (Talk) 17:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 17:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NPOL, as he has never held sufficient elected office, fails WP:GNG, as only one secondary source appears in the article or following a search, and the article is also heavily promotional. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per Devonian Wombat. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, and I was unable to find adequate coverage in English sources to argue that the subject passes WP:GNG. Watchlisting this in case new sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Siciliano edit

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

advertising or promotion Chief Minister (Talk) 17:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 17:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and copy paste
https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-web/medschool-wpcontent/sites/15/2019/06/04142030/CV_Siciliano-10.2019.pdf Chief Minister (Talk) 17:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Disagree, I recommend Keep.It looks like the copyright flag was due to the citations, which have a standard format. I've now replaced a few of them with the cite journal template. Bcerrato1 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2015 PhD, whose citation record is a good ways away from WP:NPROF C1 in a higher citation field. The early career awards are not a pass of WP:NPROF C2, little sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way TOOSOON. Here are the Scopus metrics for Siciliano and his 61 coauthors with 12+ papers (the median number for all 121 coauthors; average is 35 papers):

Total citations: avg: 5311, med: 1108, Siciliano: 580.

Total papers: avg: 65, med: 30, S: 36.

h-index: avg: 26, med: 16, S: 15.

Top citations: 1st: avg: 475, med: 264, S: 62. 2nd: avg: 290, med 170, S: 48. 3rd: avg: 245, med: 125, S: 43. 4th: avg: 208, med: 103, S: 43. 5th: avg: 180, med: 87, S: 31.

Top first-author: avg: 299, med: 107, S: 48.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. way WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 02:52, 12 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. Article has been deleted for blatant self-promotion by admin. (non-admin closure) – robertsky (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Ng edit

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

advertising or promotion Chief Minister (Talk) 17:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 17:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, non-notable advertisment already deleted a couple of hours ago for the same reason JW 1961^Talk 17:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note This is blatant self-promotion and a wholly unsourced BLP to boot. I've speedy deleted and salted until an approved draft is written.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 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 delete as a recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD, both titles salted. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Mhatre edit

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

Non notable politician. An opposition leader and a councillor in a municipal corporation does not meet our guidelines at WP:NPOL. No references found in a WP:BEFORE to indicate meeting notability. Jupitus Smart 17:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL and not enough coverage for GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page has been deleted multiple times link including via an Afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pritam Janardan Mhatre. Jupitus Smart 10:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this page is deleted, then it needs to be salted due to the history detailed by Jupitus Smart above. None of the English-language sources help a whit for notability, being to a one sound bites/quotes. No comment on the non-English sources, except that two sources really is not enough to meet GNG and NPOL does not seem to have been satisfied. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm assuming OP is correct about BEFORE. We do want to avoid being anglosphere-centric, but I mean c'mon. You need to be at least a state-level legislator or equivilant, unless you have some other notability. Herostratus (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage to suggest WP:GNG or a criterion such as WP:NPOL is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No comment on the notability of the subject, but the vandalism of the nominating editor's statement suggests bad faith on the part of the article creator. Funcrunch (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD criteria G4. This has been deleted at a previous AfD as noted by User:Jupitus Smart. This appears to be a clear case of promotion by the article creator. After deletion, this and similarly named pages should be salted to avoid further abuse. Laplorfill (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. Extraordinary behaviour all round from the article creator, who took this AfD to ANI! Fails WP:GNG, likely UPE/COI in any case. (added speedy as per Laplorfill's salient contribution above.) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:21, 14 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 don't see a consensus to redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Alldis Sr. edit

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

Unsourced article since its creation in 2006. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Middlesex County Cricket Club#Club scorers~~ Delete Not seeing enough for a WP:GNG pass and he didn't play any FC/LA cricket or manage any notable teams. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From reading other members of the WikiProjects's views it seems that the preference is deletion over redirect. Maybe the section should be removed from Middlesex County Cricket Club page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Wholly unsourced. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure a redirect is appropriate here. At best a redirect to his son's article? StickyWicket (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a county level scorer isn't included in any notability criteria that I can find. The Middlesex article is odd in that it has a list of scorers on it - that's OK, but not all of them are clearly not notable. There's no reason to look for a redirect here - and the title is unlikely to be a search term anyway. Jim Alldis, which currently redirects to this article, should be the subject of Jim Alldis Jr.. From the list of Middlesex scorers, I'd say Don Shelley needs deleting as well. He still appears to be the Middlesex scorer, but it's not the easiest piece of information to find out - I'd support deleting the section from the Middlesex page - I'm not sure that much of the officers or staff content is really necessary in many ways. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming that Middlesex's scorers are removed from that page, otherwise redirect to Middlesex County Cricket Club#Club scorers. Either way, no need for an article on someone who will never pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
County officials/employees like scorers (and Jim Sims also appears to have been manager of Middlesex's Cricket school [7]) can be notable, but I'm not seeing the sort of coverage that would be needed to get past WP:GNG - he doesn't appear to have an obituary in the relevant Wisden, for example.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not much significant coverage. 1друг (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG and there is really no subject specific guidelines for club scorers, unless they meet wider requirements of WP:GNG. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 16:01, 18 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 15:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadiyya–Jewish relations edit

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

Non-notable topic. PepperBeast (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails the GNG: reliable sources don't appear to have discussed the relationship between these two groups. In light of this, it's not surprising that the article as written seems to be little more than synthesis/OR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To keep, someone needs to show a few articles which very clearly make this topic meet WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Extraordinary Writ. Mosesheron (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:09, 15 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Avenue (band) edit

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

This was originally nominated for AfD by Minnemeeples but was done incorrectly so I'm renominating. Here's the original nomination: The music group lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The band's most significant work was published on a compilation album. The content of the article contains mostly unsourced biographical information about the band. Minnemeeples (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Minnemeeples assessment and that this article fails WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NBAND lomrjyo^{(talk•contrib)} 17:00, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Kuruganti edit

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

A non-notable entrepreneur who fails NBIO. There are a few sources that cover him briefly in passing, quote him or interview him, but none of them contain significant and independent coverage needed to establish notability. M4DU7 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable business person. Fails WP:GNG. Created by a single purpose editor whose only other major edits have been to this person's company and another borderline non notable person. Warrants a delete. Jupitus Smart 14:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear fail of WP:GNG. likely a COI editor Dexxtrall (talk) 21:58, 15 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 Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Alternative protests. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Free HK' traffic lights edit

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

After this was proposed for deletion for lack of notability, more sources were added, but these seem to be a Twitter post, and then two sources (one a column) which don't even mention (let alone give significant attention to) this specific traffic light retrofit. Which only seems to reinforce the strong impression that this is some very minor aspect of the general protests, nothing more. Fram (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram:Merge to Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests.--Hubble_{Three_{Know me more}}🔭(talk with me)☢(contributions) 14:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Alternative protests: The article fails independent notability. The corresponding article on Chinese Wikipedia were decided to merge per local AFD discussion but were not merged simply since no one did it, so it's unlikely that it will meet the notability guideline. However, a merge/redirect can be done per WP:ATD. Sun8908 _Talk 19:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 19:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as above. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:25, 13 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 don't find the keep argument persuasive in the absence of non-local sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Chantal SABS edit

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

No evidence of notability in the article or found online. Multiple search terms are possible, but the result are largely primary or unreliable sources (e.g. like this). Fram (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheSaintsGuy may or may not be relevant here; just sayin' Elizium23 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have moved the article to a more appropriate name of Mary Francesca de Chantal, FYI. Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @Elizium23: Thanks to share but investigation is not relevant here because page is created before getting blocked but the sources are not reliable. My vote is delete after [8], [9], [10]. 1друг (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The rename was appropriate, but the order she founded has no article and her canonisation is only by the local diocese. None of this is enough to make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think being declared a Servant of God, the first step on the way to canonisation, is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough coverage for notability, as her canonisation was only local.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:44, 18 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 Walter Francis White. ✗plicit 13:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Harrison edit

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

Cant see any credible (see WP:NOTINHERITED) claimof notability. TheLongTone (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Walter Francis White. The subject may not be notable on their own but the material should be included in the Walter Francis White's article. Ifnord (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redir per Ifnord; agree with the nom RE notability, but merger would be preferable to del. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll go with merge & redirectTheLongTone (talk) 12:05, 14 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. Seddon ^talk 20:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss World runners-up and finalists edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnecessary fork from Miss World article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is more of a fork of List of Miss World titleholders. If we should also have a list of runners-up/finalists, the first stop should be proposing to expand that 15-year-old list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It outstanding enough, like List of Miss Universe runners-up and finalists and List of Miss International runners-up and finalists, Miss World is the oldest international beauty pageant in the world and the runner-up from this pageant also outstanding enough. Sorry with my English. Bonutra (talk), 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bonutra. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proper directory type page with citations. Peter303x (talk) 00:46, 19 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 List of generation I Pokémon. ✗plicit 12:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articuno, Zapdos, and Moltres edit

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

And here, three Pokemons in one entry. All fail GNG, coverage is WP:SIGCOV failing mentions in passing. Another case of "at best, redirect to List of generation I Pokémon". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I also support changing the redirect target of Furiizaa to Frieza. Link20XX (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Literally fails WP:Pokemon Test. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per reason above. 180.194.151.145 (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and the reasons above. I am slightly surprised that more coverage of these Pokémon do not exist since they are the first legendary Pokémon introduced in the games. I do not see evidence of significant coverage, but I think this a plausible search term so that would seem preferable over out-right deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, ensuring that they're redirected separately as Articuno and Zapdos and Moltres, rather than as a collected. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:00, 15 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 List of generation I Pokémon. ✗plicit 12:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koffing and Weezing edit

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

Another Pokemon where the reception is just a few mentions in passing, plus game guides (which is all I see in BEFORE). Fails WP:GNG. At best redirect to List of generation I Pokémon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Link20XX (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of generation I Pokémon. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) We already have Koffing and Weezing redirects and there is no potential use for this combined search phrase, so while deletion is better than sending this to RfD later, the two character blurbs are unsourced in the Gen 1 list, so can merge to preserve some of the citations. czar 03:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon per nom. While I really like both these Pokémon (primarily because of my nostalgia for the anime). I do not see evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 14 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 12:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ishita Katyal edit

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

No indication of notability. just wanted to promote a young girl on the basis of one Tedx event. fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR GermanKity (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wholly promotional. Fails WP:BASIC. The article is just on the back of WP:ONEEVENT. RationalPuff (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A case of WP:BLP1E. Ab207 (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All are related to one event only, just being a tedx not making someone notable. [11] [12] [13] [14]. 1друг (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ONEEVENT. No evidence of sustained notability. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:08, 15 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 12:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ramayana School edit

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

No indication of notability. Neither satisfy WP:NSCHOOL nor WP:ORG. GermanKity (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either the sources are not reliable like this [15] or just the routine coverage like this [16]. 1друг (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything that addresses the topic directly and in-depth. Everything is extremely trivial, routine coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:54, 12 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 List of Superman enemies. ✗plicit 12:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vyndktvx edit

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

This was prodded by User:Killer Moff as "Fails GNG." then the PROD was removed with no rationale. I concur that the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I hope nobody will be mislead by the reference to the The DC Comics Encyclopedia: The Definitive Guide to the Characters of the DC Universe - this is just a licenced, illustrated book companion for the comic fans, not any serious reference work. (Here's the DC fan wiki entry on it [17] and you can see the "quality" of this source by entering it's name into google images - here's the sample page for Green Arrow, for example: [18] - 100% plot summary, zero scholarly or journalistic analysis). At best I can see this being redirected to List of DC Comics characters: V. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Superman enemies. Not notable enough to deserve his own article, already has a mention there. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Superman enemies - I searched for sources, and I did not find much outside of plot summaries and the confirmation that he only appeared as the villain in a single story arc. I was initially going to advocate deletion, as I did not think the sources justified a merge to the List of DC Comics characters: V list, but the suggestion of a Redirect to List of Superman enemies, where he is already covered, is a valid alternative to deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Superman enemies. Insufficient sources to support a standalone article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:10, 16 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 12:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cynapse edit

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

Advertisement of the company. Lack of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content GermanKity (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, non-notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of meeting WP:NCORP. Ab207 (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have not analyses the sources but on google search its showing good results. [19] This is reliable but can't find 3 best sources. 1друг (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just a promotional article. Fails WP:NCORP RationalPuff (talk) 08:47, 17 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 12:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshyaraj Singh Mewar edit

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

no evidence of actual notability. No substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices DGG ( talk ) 10:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable scion of that illustrious house. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No indication of notability. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found, did not find the article notable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:07, 15 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 12:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Camryn Rogers edit

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

qualified to represent Canada is not the same as actually representing Canafa. DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With respect, winning the Canadian national championship - twice as far as I can see - and breaking a collegiate record - as well as national coverage that would appear to get her past WP:GNG - seems to me to be a keeper... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whew, that article is in bad shape, but the subject meets WP:NCOLLATH under multiple points, having won the NCAA championship twice and breaking a collegiate record. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Twice NCAA champion, set two NCAA records, Canadian champion, world under-20 champion, #4 in the world this year, and there is significant coverage going back to at least 2018 from reliable sources. Jozape (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly competing at a notable level of the sport, winning top level national and international events, which has received sufficient third party coverage. SFB 00:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NCOLLATH. Article needs work though. ExRat (talk) 08:19, 14 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 12:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flytxt edit

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

Blatant advertisement of the company. fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND GermanKity (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. "AI driven customer engagement solutions" Lovely. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it never creates confidence, we can clean up corporate puff. Most important is that Flytxt is a startup or perhaps just after the startup phase and is not yet notable per analysis of main newspapers. Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Without prejudice for many years down the road. Next time, hopefully without the puff! gidonb (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is basically telling that the subject has some big players among their customers. They also mention one product in a very unbalanced way. Notable companies have many well known products and services. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Packed with telltale PR nonsense Dexxtrall (talk) 22:05, 15 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 12:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Vasudevan edit

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

Advertisement. References do not indicate the notability of the subject. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOV. GermanKity (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional, not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of nobility. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Fails WP:BASIC. RationalPuff (talk) 15:44, 16 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 Brierfield, Lancashire. Seddon ^talk 20:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Luke the Evangelist Church, Brierfield edit

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

no evidence of notability Parish churches, unless historic, are not automatically notable . The only thing resembling refs is listings in directories DGG ( talk ) 10:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBUILDING and GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parish churches tend to have significant 3rd party coverage and are important to their communities so in general I'd expect them to survive AFD but if this one isn't listed and there otherwise doesn't appear to be that much coverage I'd consider merging it with its location. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect or briefly merge to Brierfield. Appears to be a typical NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless better (ie non-directory) sources can be found. Although I've just wasted quite a bit of time rescuing this church from a Roman Catholic diocese and from the north sea, I'm not sure it's notable. It ought probably to be a redirect to Brierfield, Lancashire, although it isn't mentioned there at present except for an image added a couple of days ago by the creating editor of this article under discussion. That redirect, or this article, needs a mention in St._Luke's_Church#England. Oh dammit I'll do it myself... done. PamD 17:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brierfield, Lancashire. JGHowes ^talk 18:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brierfield, Lancashire or briefly merge. Appears to be a NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares'109.249.181.70 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? I mean the church exists and is part of the Lancashire Online Parish Clerk Project, on A church near you and faith UK. To name a few. It seems notable if the mosque article is I made and town hall article for Brierfield. The church is also a typical small parish church.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sources mentioned are just listings and don't constitute significant coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brierfield, Lancashire or briefly merge. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:46, 16 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 01:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Magnus edit

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tyrone Magnus

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

The article information contains mostly trivial and Non-notable Youtuber with only 2 reliable source, but the reliable sources contained only like Popular Youtuber reacts to ____ or Tyrone defended ....., article doesn't either have biography section. Having his own article might be irrelevant. Uploading picture account (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uploading picture account (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator has been blocked - should this be closed as a procedural keep? PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Other than a single NBC News story there does not appear to be any reliable source coverage. Multiple sources are required to meet notability guidelines.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Also, I feel like some these IP's who keeps on deleting the template has connection (COI). 180.194.151.145 (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:45, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacPaw edit

AfDs for this article:

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

This is advertising . A list of products, some minor reviews, some promotional awards, and a number of mentions DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has strong references including Forbes, TechCrunch, Entrepreneur. I think it is in line with WP:GNG. I have found 2 references in books about their products: [20] and [21]. Maybe, the article should be edited and rewritten in a more neutral voice without product list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.153.69.197 (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes ref isn't about the firm, but general & just mentions the firm; Telecrunch has one note is a note about funding and a promotional intervieww where the proprietor says whatever they care do; Entrepreneur is another promotional interview. None of these meet WP:NCORP. This article might have been acceptable here--10 years ago. Standards have risen. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG rationale above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:42, 15 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 12:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edin Lynch edit

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable footballer Chief Minister (Talk) 09:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 09:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the old AfD from December 2020 still applies here. SportingFlyer T·C 10:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per SportingFlyer - the old AfD was actually closed and the page deleted earlier this year. Nothing's changed either in the information presented or the arguments from January. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and now signed for a club in the third tier of Scottish football so can't see even a good argument for draftifying currently. Recent coverage is nothing more than a sentence about his transfer in Daily Record. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per consensus ta last AFD, and a trout to @Fragglerock52: for re-creating. Giant Snowman 13:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My apologies everyone. I thought that appearances in the Scottish Championship qualified a player as meeting the guidelines - but from reading up on the updated guidelines that does not appear to be the case any longer. I also didn't realise that a page on the same topic had already been deleted previously. FYI two further pages I created a few years ago might also need deleted? Ross Lyden and Kyle Prior as they only made a limited number of appearances in that league - which was not fully professional at the time? I'll leave that over to you guys to decide. Thanks. F.

@Fragglerock52: there is still consensus that the Scottish Championship was fully pro until 2019-20 so those other footballers do (although only just) pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Lynch doesn't as his appearances came at a time that it was clear that there were semi pro players in that league, therefore we were not able to call it a fully professional league as per WP:FPL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Fair enough. Although it's strange. The Scottish Championship has rarely been a fully pro league. In the 2016-17 season there were two part-time clubs (Dumbarton and Ayr United) just as there was last season. I understand that it wouldn't be effective to change the guidelines season-by-season though. Especially for a small league! Take care, F.

Delete - As others have said, under current guidelines does not meet notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. However, given the player is still active and could meet NFOOTY in the future and the article was recreated in good faith, I would be opposed to SALTing as some have suggested. Smartyllama (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would tend to agree - as I said in the previous AFD he his young enough that he could yet meet notability (eg by playing in a fully professional league), and the recreation of the article was clearly done in good faith. Dunarc (talk) 18:47, 15 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 12:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about the environment edit

AfDs for this article:

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

This is way too broad and imprecise. Is this about modern ecological movement? Or would each and every song about rivers, mountains, forest, seas, wind and so on fit too? And animals? Mostly unreferenced. Fails WP:LISTN. Technical note: 3rd (and last) AfD in 2007 was delete, but this was recreated in 2008 and sneaked through. Can't trace the previous ones, maybe the name was changed over time. If deleted again, I suggest salting. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTPURP and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Far too broad of a categorisation to be useful as a list, and is also extremely poorly sourced with a lot of list entries not even having articles themselves. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This AfD is similar to this AfD. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good link from LSGH - waiting breathlessly for the 'List of songs about hearts'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexandermcnabb, I can't believe List of songs about love was never created... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just took me 5 minutes to check if one speicific song listed really was about the environment - it wasn't. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated, this is indiscriminate, with widely varying degrees of relevance, and virtually no evidence. A proper article (not a list) about the environment in song, properly cited, would be a fine thing, in contrast. But that would require (shock, horror) studying and citing reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blecch. I have little to add to the policy-based votes by everyone above. The title of this list should be "List of songs with vague environmentalist politics and songs that mention animals and songs that talk about trees a little and a few that name drop earthquakes in their lyrics plus one or two that have wind in their titles as a metaphor for feelings". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, and burn down with fire. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too unorganized and indiscriminate. Kerberous (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll quote myself from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about rain (2nd nomination) (linked above): This simply doesn't work as a list article; I don't see any way we could construct proper WP:LISTCRITERIA that would allow us to make a list that is even remotely comprehensible and possible to maintain. The difference between that list and this one is that in this case, the corresponding prose article already exists: Environmentalism in music (I'm guessing this is what Chiswick Chap meant). That being said, there is nothing worth merging from this list to that prose article. TompaDompa (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate Spudlace (talk) 23:05, 17 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

777 Charlie edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=777_Charlie Chief Minister (Talk) 09:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 09:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no reason for deletion has been given; the former article's deletion log is not relevant here. Please also see User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 15#777 Charlie regarding this article's acceptance via AfC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for information.Chief Minister (Talk) 10:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ivanvector above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion/protection log from three years ago is irrelevant now. Passes WP:NFF easily. M4DU7 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film's production is covered substantially, meets WP:NFF. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep As the production is notable and the movie is about to release. 1друг (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film's details are covered substantially, meets WP:NFF. -- Mruthunjaya9 (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been following the news since the article was created during the film was announced. Previously, an article was deleted because the article was created by a banned user. Also, there was lack of references. Film is announced and trailer is also out. Trailer has set few records. I believe Wikipedia is there to share worlds knowledge. If we do not have such a trending topic on Wikipedia, I don't know what article meets the policy. Of course, the article should be improved. Also, I notice User:Vedbas is quite new editor. I feel user did not understand Wikipedia:AfD yet. My strong reccomendations are please go through policies and read through Wikipedia:Notability (films). --Gopala Krishna A (talk) 04:40, 12 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.

Keep This article meets Wikipedia general notability guidelines.Manasa cp18 (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 20:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rockingham bus station edit

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

Absolutely no evidence of notability. Completely unsourced even after becoming defunct Ajf773 (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ~~List of Perth bus stations~~Rockingham railway station, Perth. Suitable alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am also comfortable with keeping the article given that there are specialist magazine articles on the bus station demonstrating some external notability. Deus et lex (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rockingham railway station, Perth. Better target. Rockingham bus station can exist as a paragraph on that article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is now fully cited. Plinjit (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, citations have now been added and public transport infrastructure has generally been assumed to be notable at least for railway stations, so I don't see why we need to be so strict about establishing notability for bus stations. NemesisAT (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the citation issue has been fixedJackattack1597 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, citations existing and fixed. Peter303x (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Bush (Hornblower) edit

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

PROD removed without rationale by the usual party. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Hornblower himself is notable, but no other character from the book series is; Bush is just a supporting character that appeared in several novels and his character did not attract any significant discussion from literary scholars or reviewers, outside few sentences summarizing plot related to him here or there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The usual cut/paste, drive-by nomination which claims to have followed WP:BEFORE but mysteriously fails to find sources such as A character sketch of Lieutenant William Bush by the respectable author Anthony Price. Harrumph! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Livejournal is a blog. Price is not a scholar, either historian or literary, so I am not sure what quality of coverage we can find in this book (assuming the link to the author is correct), but the blog seems to quote the relevant passage from the book - all three paragraphs - in its entirety, and it's all is just a plot summary. I wonder if the book you found is actually a fiction piece, a variation of C. Northcote Parkinson's The Life and Times of Horatio Hornblower (which I am sure contains more disucssion of Bush, and which cannot be used as a source as it is more of PRIMARY stuff masquarading as SECONDARY). Anyway, a number of reviewers note the jarring confusing of reality and fiction in Price's book, such as his treatment of Hornblower as a real historical character. Whether it's a form of a joke or terrible scholarship, the source is probably not reliable, and anyway, per the cited passage, doesn't help us (since it's pure plot summary - WP:ALLPLOT and so on). If you find anything that goes beyond a plot summary of this character, do let us know. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think he knows more than he's saying.
— Lieutenant William Bush, Captain Horatio Hornblower

Delete No other fictional supporting character in the Hornblower series merits an article, I'd be fascinated to find out why Bush apparently did. Article's a mess, what little content of merit is in here can be merged to the Horblower article, but it would add very little to what's already there. Finally, the subject's simply not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see any reason why this particular supporting character would warrant his own article, even with the (irrelevant) blog article Dexxtrall (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Intothat darkness 17:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think the character of Bush has enough coverage or made a wide enough impact to merit his own article. While the character has appeared in 4 of the 8 TV Hornblower films and the earlier movie, he is not the focus of any of them and I see no evidence that the character has made a wider impact on popular culture. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 16 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 12:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prodapt edit

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

Blatant advertisement of the company based on Press Releases. Lack of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. GermanKity (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional in the extreme, notable in the other extreme. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A buzzword-laden article on a subsidiary, substantially edited by the WP:SPA Prodapt123. Even if the sections setting our their wares (such as Digital impact business outcome) were to be pruned, I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. The various listings and industry awards (Fast-50, Best Employee Recognition Program, etc.) fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH and searches find more routine announcement-based coverage. Fails WP:NCORP, and neither the Jhaver Group parent company nor the Affirma Capital minority stakeholder ([22]) has a page which could serve as a redirect target. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: providers of "insights and services leveraging next-gen technologies", whatever that means, are not inherently notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:59, 18 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. Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sruthy Sasidharan edit

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

No significant roles played in multiple notable productions to qualify for WP:NACTOR. Some articles have self-promotion content. Also fails WP:GNG. Youtube link will not be consider for notability. PangolinPedia 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:28, 27 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 00:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per non-trivial coverage already cited in the article from major Indian newspapers (Times of India, The Hindu, etc,). Passes WP:GNG. On a side note, this person is a singer and not an actress, a fact one would know if one actually reads the sources.4meter4 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:59, 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 keep. After discarding two arbitrary votes and one vote whose reasoning relies solely on lots of sources, the consensus seems to be borderline keep. Nonetheless, the article needs some clean-up by removing any irrelevant sources and rewriting parts of the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgia Nerd edit

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

References do not justify the notability of the subject. Fails WP:RS, WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. wbm1058 (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i dont think a yotuber with 400k subs is notable enough for a wikipedia article and most sources are either social media sites, youtube videos,self published posts with no indication of notability.Ratnahastin ^talk 07:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I bow down to greater knowledge. However, I have improved the sources for WP:GNG,WP:RS and will continue to do so. The person in question is often on UK TV/media, and notable for his publications. Therefore I believe of interest outside of the YouTube remit.Wikidiwikidi ^talk 13:44, 4 June 2021 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 06:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's an awful lot of sources, but when you boil them down, it's a very thin sauce... No RS at all, in fact... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. I could count The Times, published best selling books, the UK's Channel 4, National Computer Museum, Local news and magazine outlets and various scholar publications to name a few of the reliable sources.Wikidiwikidi ^talk 14:25, 11 June 2021 (GMT)

Keep. If things like ‎Commodore 65 and ‎.kkrieger are notable then people who accumulate 400,000 subscribers and 60 million views on YouTube for their reliable-source talks about such things are notable. wbm1058 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man have tons of sources 12:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep Nostalgia Nerd creates thorough & noteworthy historical and discovery work which is critically well received (some of which I've added to this article to improve), and has actually made several subjects within Wikipedia relevant; therefore appropriate for inclusion and WP:CREATIVE. There are numerous applicable links for WP:GNG. He's also referenced within numerous other Wikipedia articles; so keeping would strengthen the Wikipedia internal link structure. User:Asandersgrant User talk:Asandersgrant 14:54, 14 June 2021 (BST)
Keep He's got a significant amount of coverage and the article has over 50 references. I think he's definitely notable and deleting the article seems a bit too much. It could be improved in the long run by the addition of more sources but I don't think the article deserves deletion. Evanszoe (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of effort has been put in here with the amount of sources to try and establish notability that just isn't there Dexxtrall (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We're missing the point here. We're trying to judge him by his subscribers counts, but he has written a notable book, his work has been covered in The Times, Channel 4, and other notable media outlets, so passes WP:GNG. The article needs a major re-write up to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, but sorry to say WP:AfD is not a place for WP:CLEANUP. 2405:6E00:31C0:5000:5D2D:1843:9729:3F55 (talk) 21:58, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fluix edit

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

Looks like an advertisement. Previously deleted as per A7 and G11. Most of the References are press releases. GermanKity (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect: This is one of several articles on the Readdle company and its products. The article author was previous warned about WP:COI in respect of Readdle articles. The present article is about a rebranding of the enterprise version of their PDF Expert (software), though much of this article is about the prior history of the company and that earlier product. Leaving aside the press releases and routine announcements, the product reviews and inclusions in industry sector lists do not look sufficient to demonstrate that specific notability has been attained. A basic merge (just noting the tool and its target market) and redirect to either PDF Expert (software) or Readdle could be an option? AllyD (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 5 out of 17 references are press releases that are the only confirming sources of information about the historical details of the company in 2021. Meanwhile the main milestones are supported with materials of Wikipedia and other trusted sources. I confirm that I'm aware of WP:COI and previously contributed some details and facts about Readdle, but I'm not a paid editor or an advertiser, this company is popular and well known in Ukraine. Considering that being familiar with the founders of the company, the area of WP:COI may raise suspicion here, thus in this article I avoided personal assessments and conclusions, avoided marketing speak and included confirmation of the stated facts in external sources. Among these facts there is one that declares that Fluix is actually not just a rebranded product of Readdle, but the standalone company registered in Ireland, based in several countries, meanwhile PDF Expert is still one of the products of Readdle. I respect the rules of the community and the project, therefore I would like to ask you to consider this article solely as historical materials about the company and general information about its activities, and remove any content you consider questionable. Nikosx4 (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Not a single reason, based on our policies and guidelines, has been provided for this !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is to be kept, it needs to be completely rewritten to meet WP:NPOV. As it stands, it looks like a PR piece. Most of the refs discuss Readdle, not Fluix. At best, this should be a stub. I'm having a hard time checking on some of the refs, so that's why I'm not voting for keep or delete. Angryapathy (talk) 13:58, 28 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) 05:02, 4 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) 05:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect as per AllyD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* (not their products) 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. Nor "product reviews" that don't provide Independent Content *on the company*. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either PR/Announcements, comments/reviews of product (some don't even mention the company!), standard business listings or the product's inclusions in lists. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR junk Dexxtrall (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough reliable in depth coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:38, 18 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 List of generation III Pokémon. ✗plicit 12:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latias and Latios edit

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

What makes those Pokemon notable? There is a reception section here, but it is just a list of apperances, plushies, and side comments in the form of sentence or two in passing (so WP:SIGCOV fail). Not a single source cited names those characters in their title, and even the quotes in the articles are pure plot summary like . Latios has the ability to make its foe see an image of what it has seen or imagines in its head. This Pokémon is intelligent and understands human speech." Anything else I see online in my BEFORE is a game-guide on how to obtain this unit or use it in a particular game (ex. [23]). At best this can be redirected to List of generation III Pokémon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable, and the reception section is terrible, showing a total lack of WP:NPOV and mostly incorporating criticism of people who are very much not Pokemon fans. Not that it's anything substantive, since it's mostly just snippets of larger reviews unrelated to the Pokemon. Not enough here to make it pass GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation III Pokémon - I couldn't find any coverage discussing these Pokemon in-depth, rather I found page after page of game guides and walkthroughs. They're insufficiently notable for a discrete article. (Which is a shame, as I love the movie based around them....) firefly ( t · c ) 07:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation III Pokémon per Firefly. Some of the development and reception information about the subjects should be salvaged for Pokemon Heroes, especially the entire paragraph's worth of cited critic reviews for the movie. Haleth (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Piotrus, Perhaps you might want to see Koffing and Weezing and Articuno, Zapdos, and Moltres (I think most of the sources are just passing mention on reception). 180.194.151.145 (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear anon, I'll take a look but you are welcome to AfD them yourself before I do. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgot to include Meltan and Melmetal. 180.194.151.145 (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Link20XX (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I'd certainly agree with redirecting certain other Pokémon articles, particularly those which use multiple Pokémon to enhance notability. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:36, 16 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. Less Unless (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Ebrahimi edit

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

Too early in this person's career. TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations on GS are negligible. WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 13:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF, but did wonder if the media attention for plasma-based rocket propulsion system pushed over the line for WP:GNG... I'm not convinced though. Even if so, might be WP:BIO1E. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far TOOSOON. Scopus gives her an h-index of 15 and 598 citations, which is not nearly enough for this high-citation field. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 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 redirect to List of generation III Pokémon#Rayquaza. ✗plicit 12:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rayquaza edit

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

What makes those Pokemon notable? There is a reception section here, but it is primarily the stretched version of stff like "it was ranked 11th in Complex's The "25 Most Kickass Dragons in Video Games" list", and bad style claims like "with reviewers claiming" (when the source is a single review). Almost all coverage is a sentnece or two in passing (so WP:SIGCOV fail). Only three indepdent sources focus on this pokemon (naming him in their title): one is a YouTube video by a fan, this one from IGN looks like a game-guide, and the last one [24] is a short recap of a press release for the upcoming game. This Pokemon failed to captivate the fans (didn't win any fan awards, there is little merch), and is obviously not known outside fandom (no reception in mainstream media, no scholarly analyses, etc).

BEFORE doesn't show anything reliable that's not a mention in passing, no WP:SIGCOV outside few more game guides 'how to get them/how to play with them' (ex. [25]). The best solution with WP:PRESERVE in mind would be to redirect this to List of generation III Pokémon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete / Draft: This page is not justified, while this pokemon did serve as a main character for a few games I believe it should be limited to those pages and not have its own independent page. However, this is a lot of information here and I think it could stay (with significant cleanup). If the original author is still around, it could be drafted back to them. TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation III Pokémon per nom. Link20XX (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of generation III Pokémon per nom, mostly plotcruft with no redeeming aspects in terms of notability. Fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per reason above. 180.194.151.145 (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nominator and the above comments. I am somewhat surprised that there was not more coverage on this one since it was a mascot for one of the games (Emerald) and has seemingly appeared in other iterations of the games, but I guess it just never attracted attention on its own right and did not really click with fans. Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no opinion on the deletion, I just wanted to say that I find remarks about "not clicking with fans" to be judgmental and borderline offensive. Consider your words a bit more carefully. Carry on with the process, I don't want to disrupt anything. 2001:8003:B061:F600:B4CE:B8E4:240C:C697 (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how that is judgmental or offensive. That seems like a very big reach to me and before you make accusations against people, you should assume good faith. The (apparent) fan response to this Pokémon was brought up in the nominator's rationale and my comment was in agreement with their assessment. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoba47, Indeed. I could only clarify that I meant that it "failed to captivate most fans", compared to the 'famous' Pokemons like Pikachiu. No offense meant to the few fans it has. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the response! I actually really like this Pokémon, specifically its Meso-American design, but it just did not attract significant coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 16 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 13:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guarda Crater edit

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

Fails the GNG. The only sources I can find are two conference abstracts, the 1991 one originating the hypothesis and a 2012 75th Annual Meteoritical Society Meeting abstract and an associated Masters thesis finding that there is no evidence for the impact claims. Given that none this has been published in any peer reviewed literature there simply isn't anything to go on. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability and independent, reliable, secondary sources, from which a neutral article can be constructed. Searched literature using GEOREF, Google Scholar, JSTOR, and so forth and found only one additional paper that mentions this feature. This paper only states that this feature is disputed and lacks any useful information for a potential article. The paper is:

Schmieder, M. and Buchner, E., 2013. Impaktereignisse in Europa (Impact events in Europe). German Journal of Geology, 164, pp.387-415. Paul H. (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps move the content to List of possible impact structures on Earth.VR _talk 19:46, 14 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 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fried Egg structure edit

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

These claims fail the GNG, as they have only received reliable coverage from a single reliable source, a BBC article. The initial announcement was a self-published conference abstract. A 2017 abstract suggest that they are more likely to be volcanic craters, but again this has not been published in a journal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The second abstract is also the only further treatment I could find. The structures are listed on what I believe passes as two authoritative registers [26][27] - both have it as "potential" - but these lists are vast; just look at [28]... I'd agree that more coverage than two conference abstracts and one writeup based on the first of these is needed to qualify for an article. Bit bummed that neither of the two teams seems to have found it necessary to publish their findings in a journal, that would probably have done it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone through many fringe impact claims, I'm conviced that Anna Mikheeva's list is not really that useful. The list includes basically every impact claim that has ever been made, no matter where it has been published. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neither list passes as a peer-reviewed authoritative register such as the Earth Impact Database. Both lists appear to be essentially self-published compilations that the author(s) has(have) posted to their organization's websites without either peer review or similar vetting. They are useful for the citations that they provide. However, both are apparently basically non-peer reviewed professional judgements of the author(s) that fail to qualify as relible sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. 2. I suspect that a journal paper was not published about the "Fried Eggs feature" because the only data that they had on it was multibeam bathymetry data and they were unable to generate funding to specifically study these features. Paul H. (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. Seems that "fried structure" is a catchy name, used in various science domains- if one would judge from g.scholar. But anyway, the coverage is limited concerning the subject of the specific article. Cinadon36 12:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability and independent, reliable, secondary sources, from which a neutral article can be constructed. For example, I could only find a recent, additional brief reference to "...an area named “Fried Eggs” (Dias et al., 2009), characterized by numerous volcanic edifices..." in

Somoza, L., Medialdea, T., Gonz lez, F.J., Calado, A., Afonso, A., Albuquerque, M., Asensio-Ramos, M., Bettencourt, R., Blasco, I., Cand n, J.A. and Carreiro-Silva, M., 2020. Multidisciplinary Scientific Cruise to the Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Azores Archipelago. Frontiers in Marine Science. vol. 7, article 568035 Paul H. (talk) 03:25, 13 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 03:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Márk Kónya edit

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

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in April 2018. Reservist footballer. Three external links are provided, all of which go to statistics pages. G-searches brought up plenty of other statistics sites but nothing significant from reliable, third-party sources. G-news brought up only one result, which doesn't even mention the player. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has 58 mins of professional football to his name so he technically scrapes over the line for WP:NFOOTBALL and whilst this took place over 3 matches it constitutes less than one match in terms of actual playing time. In terms of WP:GNG, I did a few searches including a Hungarian one and, in terms of reliable sources, found little better than trivial mentions like Dehir. No reasonable interpretation of GNG would give this a pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass GNG, and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could find no significant coverage of any sort to count towards GNG, which overrides the technical NFOOTY pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. Govvy (talk) 09:48, 12 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 03:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAM231B edit

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

This is an article about a protein that doesn't exist. The sequence entries on which it is based have been discontinued ([29] [30]). That is, when the article was written in 2017, the subject was believed to be a human gene with a predicted protein product, but it became obsolete in a data update in 2018.

The article contains a lot of primary data, like neighboring genes, various calculated properties of the sequence, etc. Much of the rest is essentially original research: citations to BLAST results and to the output of various other bioinformatics tools, some of which are themselves obsolete or unavailable. This would all be fine as an "Intro to Bioinformatics" exercise (which is probably how it started its life) but there just isn't anything encyclopedic to be said on this topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom, not notable (not even a pseudo gene apparently) and the contents are little more than original research. Boghog (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's almost exclusively original research, citing only database entries. Tercer (talk) 13:04, 14 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 03:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Narayana Guru High School edit

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, unreferenced for 3 years now. Kolma8 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The correct procedure is to look for a merge. The article contains a Navbox, with links to other schools within that faith group so they need to be investigated first. If true this is an all-through school involving 3000 staff and children. Even if this is an English medium school- the likelihood is that most references will be in Hindi and that will tax our skills and is beyond me at the moment.

The reason for deletions is that this school fails WP:NSCHOOLS which honestly is a bit of a fudge, it sounds authoritative but is nothing of the kind. It is inaccurate, firstly non-profit making schools by definition are not covered by WP:ORG (See policy document). That leaves us with WP:GNG which is highly subjective. WP:NSCHOOLS advises us to read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES- which since 2017 has contained the lines:

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. and

References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD.

The second sentence in WP:NSCHOOLS says For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. Does this mean, that the criteria named in sentence one, only apply to For-profit educational organizations, or is it trying to say in addition- profit making schools have to apply unnamed additional criteria?

I suggest that this paragraph of the document has little to offer and creates unnecessary confusion. It looks remarkably key touch similar to the paragraph beneath. It needs to be avoided until it has been revised. ClemRutter (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BEFORE yields nothing. Fails NSCHOOLS. VV 09:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.1друг (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any option for merging? Just checking re: WP:ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to share your reasoning, and the Hindi sources you have visited? It would be good if you could comment on the other schools in this faith group and why are not proposing a merge? ClemRutter (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what little trivial information I was able to find this appears to be a private school. So it would have to pass the notability standards for organizations put forth in WP:NORG. Which it clearly doesn't. Even if it was a public school the article should still be deleted though IMO. Since there isn't even enough sources available for this to pass WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:24, 18 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Alemán edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. Subject lacks enough significant independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. 4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NOLY and in a few seconds found this and this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this meets WP:NOLY. It would actually be great to expand the article using old newspaper clippings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 08:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Competed in the Olympics - he's in. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lugnuts has found some excellent foreign language sources that meet the standard of WP:SIGCOV. I will be withdrawing the nomination shortly. Thank you to to Lugnuts. I hope those participating here will consider adding material from these sources to the article. I am not great with translations, so its a bit beyond my skill set. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:07, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JBL (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Prieto Langarica edit

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

Fails WP:NPROF. scope_creep^Talk 01:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her publications have too low citations for WP:PROF#C1. But that is only one of multiple WP:PROF criteria, and does not have any priority over the others. She has won a notable and significant national-level award for distinguished teaching from one of the major scholarly mathematical societies (WP:PROF#C2), the award cites contributions that go beyond her own institution (WP:PROF#C4), and there is plenty of WP:GNG-type coverage of both her upbringing and her current work. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NPROF as the winner of a significant award. Furius (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should have checked. I couldn't decide if the award was notable. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 10:26, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koreaboo edit

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

Seems to fail WP:NWEB. Most hits are just other people using the term (a derivative of "weeaboo") or content that does not bestow notability to the site itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage of the site itself. It was deleted by PROD in 2019, recreated in 2020 and has essentially remained in this state. Evaders99 (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just passing mentions of the website, no in-depth coverage from reliable sources to indelicate that Koreaboo is notable. ✗plicit 03:36, 18 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. Speedily deleted by Deb under WP:G3, WP:G5, and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Rumel edit

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

Non notable promotional article on an “entrepreneur” “author” “musician” “social media influencer” per the article he is basically everything, but a simple google search which I thought would generate sources for this “jack of all trades” unfortunately did not! surprisingly I came up short as I got no hits in reliable sources, the sources I observed were either user generated, self published, lacking editorial oversight or a reputation for fact checking. Needless to say, this is a GNG fail and Anybio fail imo I believe this might be an WP:AUTO, that a COI is present here is unarguable. Celestina007 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Self promotion article. ~Yahya (✉) • 05:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - long term abuse Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rumelwapbd Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:26, 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.