Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 8

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< June 07 June 09 >

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genies in popular culture edit

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

Completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. Per MOS:POPCULT, these sections/articles should be a discussion on the topic using pertinent examples.

Whether the topic has potential is irrelevant to the current rendition of the article and its past history. This is the typical TV Tropes junk containment article created because people don't want to deal with the dozens of anonymous users coming to add their bit of trivia. There is no base here from which to improve the article. There is nothing here to merge into the main article. There are no sources that would be useful in the main article. This is not a matter of improving the article. This article is worthless, and deletion is the only viable act in my opinion.

This is something that needs to be explored in the parent article and then treated as a proper content fork should its weight become overbearing. TTN (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This nomination is worthless because it's just a drive-by rant, unsupported by policy – just a feeble vague wave at WP:INDISCRIMINATE which makes no sense as the topic is quite specific. Genies in popular works such as Aladdin are obviously quite notable and it's easy to find detailed coverage of this such as From Jinn to Genies which explores how "the free-willed, potentially dangerous jinn of Arab folklore have become the enslaved gift-giving genies of global folklore." Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." In the meantime, our policy WP:IMPERFECT applies "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Me, I'm interested to find out more about the jinn in American Gods but see that there are entries for the various adaptions. Perhaps I shall add a section for poetry such as Lepanto...

    Giants and the Genii,
    Multiplex of wing and eye,
    Whose strong obedience broke the sky
    When Solomon was king.
    ...

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pop culture trivia, delete per nom. It's not a 'drive by rant' and "vague wave" of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE if 99% of the article is entries along the lines of "In the Game Boy Advance game Mega Man: Battle Network 3 White Version, one of the Navis you must fight is MistMan.EXE, whose appearance is that of a genie. His weak spot is his lamp, and he is shown to have the power to summon souls and even release poisonous mist". Even if all of the unsourced trivial entries were removed, the overarching concept of 'Genies in popular culture' not being notable enough for a standalone article is the core problem, it would be more apt to merge pertinant examples into the main article if proper sources were found for them, of which there are currently none. Waxworker (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Waxworker has identified the question of notability as the core problem. The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters has a several-page entry about "Djinn and Genie". This together with the source provided by Andrew alone shows that the topic fulfills Wikipedia's notability standards for a standalone article. I agree with the nominator that the listings are currently too long and need improvement and sourcing. These are all solvable problems, however, so the article should be improved rather than deleted, in accordance with the Wikipedia policies already cited above. I am not fundamentally opposed to treating this topic within the parent article, but that is already very long, so I think this would be worse solution compared to keeping it separate. Daranios (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A massive list of examplecruft without context. If one seeks to write an actual examination of genies in popular culture they should restart from scratch at genie and spin out to this name ONLY if merited.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The concept of genies in popular culture are likely a notable concept, and the sources mentioned by Andrew and Daranios show that. However, this massive list would basically need to be completely rewritten from scratch to even begin to have an actual valid article on the topic. The entries here, almost all of which are completely unsourced, run the gamut from "the word genie was mentioned in this song" to original research like "this character looks like a genie" to completely ridiculous entries like "there is a character named Genie in this thing" and random statements that seem to have nothing to do with the topic. Not to mention entire sections on Ifrits and Marids which, not only are debatable would actually count as "Genies" in the actual folklore, but already have their own articles with the relevant pop culture sections included. WP:TNT is not an actual policy, but considering that there is basically nothing in the current iteration of this article that is actually usable in any kind of rework, is it really worth keeping this when it would actually be easier to create a new article on the topic from scratch than trying to fix this? Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT is not only not a policy or guideline; it is also something that Rorshacma doesn't do – they don't practise what they preach. Rorshacma has only ever started four articles from scratch; they were all over ten years ago; and two of them have been deleted. Me, I have created hundreds of articles from scratch and so I know what I'm talking about when I declare that it is much easier to rewrite or improve an existing page than to start with nothing at all. This is a fundamental principle of the Wiki method – incremental improvement rather than complete fresh drafts.

    A wiki is not a carefully crafted site created by experts and professional writers and designed for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the typical visitor/user in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the website landscape.

    Andrew🐉(talk) 14:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what this random personal argument was about, considering that I was merely giving my thoughts rather than explicitly arguing to delete, especially since as I clearly said in my own comment, WP:TNT is not actual policy, and the only time I mentioned you in my comment was to state that the source you brought forward seemed to indicate notability. So, you essentially decided to make a comment agreeing with me that WP:TNT is not policy, but then also to personally call me out for some reason. So, uh, thanks for that? As an amusing side note, one of the two articles you mentioned I wrote that were deleted was done so because I, myself, brought it to AFD, as I had recognized that something I had written more than a decade ago did not actually have the valid reliable sourced to pass the WP:GNG and thus should not remain in the article space. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • People contribute to Wikipedia in different ways, and while you may create many articles and they don't, I don't think that makes their opinions any less valid. This discussion is about the article itself, not how many articles you make. If someone were to attempt to overhaul this article, basically everything would be deleted as it's all unsourced trivia. Waxworker (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm trying to go through and fix the individual bits as I go through - I don't think that this needs to be TNT'd entirely, but I do think it needs a definite improvement and to have sections created to cover the relevant literature on the genie in pop culture. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve The concept is notable, and notability is determined by existing potential sources, not the present article content which can be trimmed back and rebuilt. Haleth (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:5P1. List is well defined so WP:Indiscriminate does not apply. Sources provided by Andrew Davidson and Daranios make it clear that similar content can be found in other academic reference works including a published encyclopedia. As such, wikipedia should cover it too because we are after all an encyclopedia that covers everything and anything that any other encyclopedia would cover (even specialist ones).4meter4 (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 keep. Consensus has tended towards keeping the article; significantly HighKing switched from the strongest "delete" argument to a "keep" one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1mg edit

1mg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company fails GNG. Darktaste (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sanketio31 Mardetanha (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteChanged to keep below WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Of the four links provided above by Sonofstar:
  • Times of India is a mention with no in-depth info on the company failing WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Mint is based entirely on an announcement by the company and information provided by the company (obvious when the text "slips up" and says "are suitable for *our* customer base" :-) failing WP:ORGIND
  • Business Standard has no in-depth info on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  • Entrepreneur is entirely based on a company announcement and info provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND.
All of the articles I can find are generated from company information, essentially all part of the same echo chamber and I have been unable to find suitable refs. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I've pointed out precise reasons why those references fail our guidelines, as well as links to the guidelines themselves, you then post an Inc42 reference which relies completely on an interview with the CEO (fails ORGIND), a Quartz reference on the ban in India on selling medicines online and which doesn't even mention the topic company, an Entrackr reference that discusses a report by Kalagato but does not link to the report or provide a reference to the report, fails WP:RS as a reliable source and finally Times of India reference based on an announcement (just like similar articles in TechCrunch, Business Standard, etc. Just announced today too, isn't it remarkable how many editors have been trying to pump the value of this company and increase it's exposure just as it being rescued with a buyout. Such a coincidence. Still fails our notability standards though. HighKing++ 17:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link RS Significant Independent Count towards notability Comments by HighKing
Inc42 Yes Yes It is agreed that some portions are derived from an interview. But there are also multiple paragraphs that are written by the journalist as their own analysis of the conversation and beyond. Yes There is no analysis provided by the journalist about the company. Fails ORGIND.
Business Standard Yes Yes Survey was done by 1mg so it might be supplied by them but there is an independent view point with authors name Yes Not interested in an independent viewpoint of the survey, we require in-depth information on the company. Fails CORPDEPTH
Quartz Yes The URL, the title itself contain 1mg. Please read it again Yes Yes The URL might contains the name of the company but the article itself doesn't even mention it. Fails CORPDEPTH
Amar Ujala News Yes Yes Yes Yes Report on the ban handed out by the High Court. Mentions the topic company in a list of affected companies. Fails CORPDEPTH.
Business Today Yes 1mg Considered as a top Health Giant by media Yes Yes Entirely relies on a quote from the CEO, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
VC Circle Yes Here Indian Govt is asking them to reply Yes Yes I mean seriously? The article notes that "email queries and WhatsApp messages sent to e-pharmacies 1mg and PharmEasy seeking comments on the high court ban have not elicited a response at the time of filing this report". Fails CORPDEPTH
Inc42 Yes Statements given to High court by 1mg Yes Yes Relies entirely on information provided by the company itself, no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
TOI Yes Yes Biggest Health giant mergers is going on, stakes are bought in parts so from 8 months this is consistently in news and on 10th June Tata confirmed on their site. Yes Company announcement by Tatas as I've pointed out previously, not independent (they're an investor/owner), fails ORGIND
TOI News Yes Indepth. URL, title itself contain 1mg and page explains how Flipkart comes to partnership with it. Yes Yes It doesn't matter a jot if the company is mentioned in the URL or otherwise, we require in-depth information on the company. What exactly is in-depth in this article? It doesn't even discuss the company but rather the reaction to the partnership announcement. Fails CORPDEPTH
Mint Yes It in-depth and only one line says that they start selling vitamins. This is not an announcement read the title & content of it. Yes Yes Sure, it isn't an announcement but it is entirely *based* on an announcement? Everything in this article is sourced to the company and quotes from the CEO. Fails ORGIND
Economics Times Yes Yes read time 11 min with all the details Yes Yes This article is what we call an advertorial. All of the information (including the lead photo) is provided by the company named Droplet (an acquisition of 1mg). Fails ORGIND
CNBC Channel Yes Govt approval to 1mg during covid and their plans to distribute medicines. Only a few market leaders have these sensitive rights Yes Yes It's an interview with the CEO. "Startup Street’s Shruti Mishra spoke to Prashant Tandon, co-founder & CEO". How is this "Independent Content"? Fails ORGIND
Economic Times Yes healthy discussions & Comments on Indian Health Industry Yes Yes It's a YouTube video of an interview with the CEO. How is this "Independent Content"? Fails ORGIND
Business Standard Yes Indepth Yes Yes Another advertorial profile of the company, relies entirely on information provided by the company, their founders and their investors, fails ORGIND
1mg Economics Times Yes No Yes Yes What exactly is indepth about this article? It has zero information about the company and it is only mentioned in the context of Cash On Delivery options being removed from any websites providing items banned by the High Court including that of 1mg. Fails CORPDEPTH
Business Standard Yes Rural Medicine Supply via Govt CSC partnership Yes Yes Another article based on an announcement with all information sourced from connected sources, fails ORGIND
Inc42 Yes Complete growth and fall of the company Yes Yes An article blandly reciting the numbers announced in the latest financial results, comparing them to the last figures. No in-depth information either. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
The Hindu Business Yes Global Partner of United nation Yes Yes Entirely based on an interview with the CEO, no in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
Economics Times Yes Yes Yes Yes Another advertorial relying entirely on information provided by the company and their CEO, fails ORGIND

List of companies bought by 1mg as per reliable sources:

If you are in India then might know that it is similar to Flipkart, Uber, Paytm, in the health Industry. 20-25 reliable, independent, in-depth sources are good enough with various global, national, rural events to prove notability. I suggest editors to please look for the sources by yourself because many might be available in print, Hindi, English, and other regional languages. Still, a lot can be added to this new page if given the proper time. Sonofstar (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response Spamming this AfD with a large uncollapsed table containing 20 links won't win you many friends, especially when someone has to go through them, one at a time, and then discover that not a single reference meets NCORP requirements. You don't appear to have grasped precisely what is required for a reference to meet the criteria for establishing notability. So, rather than you insisting that all of these references meet NCORP requirements despite being shown why they don't, how about in future you pick the best reference (any single one, not another bunch) and we'll take an in-depth look at it. You can point to those parts of that article that you believe contains in-depth information on the company and also has original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and we'll comment. HighKing++ 20:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Business Standard I agree many of these sources were probably not meeting all pointers like Quartz. User:HighKing Thanks for your time. But I also wanted to highlight that there is WP:SUSTAINED and the news over a long period of time is intellectually independent on the basis of events happening. I think this particular source can’t be discarded and I urge you to relook at it. Here is what I think:
The article has an independent opinion, analysis, and investigation. It includes an IMA statement raising concerns over online pharmacies. If this was meant to be a promo piece, the journalist won’t include this. A number of facts are likely to have come from the company. Did the Journalist fact check them (like google downloads etc), we can’t predict that but might just also assume that they did because Business Standard is surely reputed? Also notice that the journalist says 1mg claims it is compliant with the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. The use of word claim signifies that the journalist is careful to publish what they can't verify and hence might be safe to assume that they maintained integrity with other facts as well.
With the internet, journalists can easily access people/companies they are writing about it is highly common to have their opinions etc included unless it is controversial or badmouthing. I will request a bit of your help here to give me few examples of online companies started after the internet boom having press about them and that doesn't have a hint that the two parties were in touch. Sonofstar (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response Sonofstar, you say the article has "independent opinion, analysis, and investigation". OK, let's take a look for anything that meets *both* WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND in the same sentence/paragraph. You refer to an IMA statement raising concerns over online pharmacies - this statement doesn't even mention 1mg so it is a generic statement. Further, the use of the word "claims" shows that the "claim" emanated from the company - that would have been a perfect opportunity for the authors to provide an independent opinion but they passed. And yes, with the internet, journalists have an easier time of it for researching information but the entire point of the stricter interpretation of notability requirements contained in WP:NCORP is to weed out articles that are based almost entirely on company-generated information. Those articles are essentially "secondary" marketing, just repeating the messages and opinions that the company want to put "out there". Nowhere in the article can I see a single sentence that is clearly "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND definition) except perhaps for the very last sentence where it says "Break-even will have to wait for a few years, considering the investment 1mg is making in technology and expansion". That isn't enough though. the "Expert Take" at the end of the article doesn't even mention 1mg which would have been an ideal opportunity for an expert to provide an independent opinion. Finally, it isn't whether the journalists were in touch with the company or officials or looked at the website, that can be perfectly fine, but we then want to journalist/expert to provide their analysis/opinion/thoughts/whatever on whatever information they've been provided. That isn't happening in this article or in any of the others linked above either. Some good places to look for "Independent Coverage" include a case study in a book (with the author's analysis), analyst reports containing an opinion on the company (not just repeating reported earnings or funding announcements), an article that compares this company and their methods, models, etc, with a different company in the same field. HighKing++ 21:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for the detailed response. I agree on various points but I also disagree with you on others. I think it would depend on how we read and interpret and it's fair to have different opinions. I see some other interesting facts said by the journalist, helps people order medicines and also provides information and suggestions on cheaper generic substitutes. I didn't see this information anywhere else and seems to be an independent observation. And similarly, The company does not process requests for Schedule X and other habit-forming drugs.. What you found promising, that is Break-even will have to wait for a few years, considering the investment 1mg is making in technology and expansion., I actually found it promotional. To me, it read like the company is trying to use expansion as an excuse to justify the delay in a breakeven. Do you see what I am saying? I still think this article would contribute to notability but that's just my opinion. You and other editors can surely differ on this and I respect that. A healthy discussion only helps understand different viewpoints better.
I am happy you talked about the comparison. [14]. This article (I couldn't access it because it needs a subscription. I believe you have it.), has an overall observation on what's happening right now (or was) in the online pharmacy market. All other online pharmacies were merging or being acquired but 1mg was going solo (they later were bought out by Tata is a different story). But I still feel this piece talks about the company in the context of the industry and independently. But I was not able to read it and you were, so you will have a more informed opinion on it. I might just urge you to relook at the context I defined above. Since other editors can't access this, we will only have a limited opinion on the utility of this source.
As you said case studies, I found this link [15] which leads to QYResearch having a complete case study with a large portion dedicated to 1mg. I can only access the table of contents from now that includes 5 sections on the company: 1MG Company Details, 1MG Business Overview and Its Total Revenue, 1MG Online Pharmaceuticals Introduction, 1MG Revenue in Online Pharmaceuticals Business (2015-2020), 1MG Recent Development. So there is evidence that such a detailed case study exists. We don't know what's written there yet. I have filled up their form to access it; let's see if we get that in time. I reckon many more such case studies would exist but we won't have access to those. Another report mentions 1mg in passing in the summary but might have more in the full report (which is available on purchase) [16]. Also found an article referring to this report and then discussing the company a bit with other players here [17].
I think this source at Indian Express will surely comfort you [18]. It says But keeping in mind the fact that we do not have a proper guideline or regulation to control the sale of drugs online till date, this can be termed as both an advantage and a disadvantage of the app. While it is simple and convenient especially for elderly and bedridden patients, there are high chances of drugs being mixed up or misused. Also, the drugs delivered online do not come with instructions or assurance of quality. A balanced view and opinion and the article also discusses other health apps.
This one also has a very detailed analysis [19], giving out a complete analysis and Journey of the company along with others in the market.
Another article [20] discusses and analyses their financials and the title focusses on 76% higher losses. The data is attributed to the company filings but the analysis and reporting on it are independent.
I think with the QYResearch case study, The Indian Express article, and The Business Bar Article we might be close to WP:THREE. The Inc42, Business Standard, ET (that talks about 1mg going solo) further supports. Sonofstar (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The QYResearch analyst report is a good reference that meets the criteria. Likewise the redseer analyst report contains a case study on 1mg (chapter 3.6) and is a good reference that meets the criteria. I've also found two reports with Frost & Sullivan analysts and while those reports attribute the sourcing of the data and information to the respective company websites, the subsequent analsysis is and detail meets the requirements. Based on these new references, I'll strike my Delete !vote and change to Keep. HighKing++ 11:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In light of the new references including analyst reports and case studies, there are sufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I've struck my previous Delete !vote above. HighKing++ 11:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HighKing's summation. PassesWP:NCORP,4meter4 (talk) 03:33, 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 merge to Foreign policy of the Recep Tayyip Erdoğan government. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The world is bigger than five edit

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

There does not seem to be any such political doctrine as "The world is bigger than five", the citations also do not mention any such term, also unable to find anything else-where. Fails WP:NOR, WP:NOTE & WP:NOT. The Turkish leaders website states it as a "motto" [21]. Correcting this on the article would not fit in my view as every political quote or slogan coined does not warrant a page. TataofTata (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the page, I think that the sources that is already existed on the page mention and detail it as opposite of the claims, where the term can be found with a quick search on the existing sources. About original research and lack of notability claims, I think that the doctrine got enough amount of detailed coverage on a long period, as a quick Scholar search shows it even got coverage from Al Jazeera.[a]
About claim of WP:NOT, I am unable to understand how is it not complying with Wikipedia's existing guidelines and policies, other than claims of original research and lack of notability.
The only thing I really agree is that not every political quote or slogan automatically requires a page, but I think this article is not one of them.
  1. ^ I don't exactly and specifically know the reliability of its "studies", but WP:RSP states:

    Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy.

Ahmetlii (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. You can call this "no consensus" if you prefer, but since the page was created by a banned editor, with 100% support for keeping from anyone entitled to take part, I think "keep" is better. Either way, we keep the article. JBW (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Reuben edit

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

Subject is not notable. Sources are not RS. Sources do not backup the claims. Sources do not mention him. They are all about his father. Bvcqszj (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bvcqszj (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to CESC Limited per WP:ATD. – Joe (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titagarh Thermal Power Station edit

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

This is a power plant of CESC Limited. The article doesn't have any content (that is why didn't request for merge) and isn't notable for an article. These things can be described in the parent article only.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to CESC Limited. per WP:ATD. – Joe (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Budge Budge Thermal Power Station edit

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

This is a power plant of CESC Limited. The article doesn't have any content (that is why didn't request for merge) and isn't notable for an article. These things can be described in the parent article only.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Junior Fed Cup Final edit

2003 Junior Fed Cup Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD rationale was I can't find any significant in-depth coverage of these junior matches. Even the Junior Wimbledon finals are not usually notable enough for their own article. In fact, even most senior Grand Slam and Fed Cup finals don't warrant stand-alone articles. There's no justification for this article.

This was removed without explanation. Quoting from the relevant policies, the complete absence of any independent sources covering these junior matches shows that they aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. WP:SPORTSEVENT requires A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved - this is clearly failed here. WP:GNG wants significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is also sorely lacking.

Additionally, SPORTSEVENT encourages that Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That article is published by Bille Jean King Cup - which is the Fed Cup. Have you got any independent sources? Wikipedia notability is not passed when the only coverage is on the subject's own website. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or keep for now. There is a brief lull in access to articles in the first five years of this millennium and to lesser extent in the five years just before and after. These seem to be gap years between articles entering the archives vs articles appearing and being kept online. If this annual event was perfectly notable before and after then it is probably not a good idea to wipe out the "lull years". On the other hand, if there is an idea to merge all these articles into the Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup this may be a great idea. (Or even splitting Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup to the contain more annual data?) In this case, I am concerned that this AfD does not reach the right public. Maybe set up a discussion on the Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup talk page how to reorganize the information, if there is a wider idea or concern? In short, I would like to see a more systematic approach for the series. gidonb (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb If there isn't any significant coverage of these individual tennis matches then maybe redirect to Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup or delete until some comes forward? I'm not sure that we can safely presume that these would have had significant coverage as even the more recent Junior Fed Cup matches don't seem to get much. The information in 2003 Junior Fed Cup Final is almost identical to the main article anyway, the only additional info is the individual match results but Wikipedia is not a sports almanac and we don't need this level of statistical detail unless the matches themselves were significant for some reason. Even Junior Grand Slam finals don't usually qualify for a separate article so I can't see why a Junior Fed Cup match would. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
spiderone For sure we are not a sports almanac. So there is no rule that we must have these articles. There is no clear rule against the entire range either. There can be merit in a reorganization of this information but for this we need to address issues heads-on. Either all these articles should be eliminated or the few that were deleted (exclusively from the "lull years") restored so we do not end up with a range of articles gapped through the technicality of source approach rather than all our information governed through substance. gidonb (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Open to restoring if verification is found Eddie891 Talk Work 22:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4th Carabinier Regiment (France) edit

4th Carabinier Regiment (France) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to my sources, (Smith 2015 An Illustrated Encylopedia of Uniforms of the Napoleonic Wars, pages 62 "The two regiments of carabiniers survived the upheavals of the Revolutionary period to become the elite units of Napoleon's heavy cavalry. The uniforms of both regiments are then described, with no mentions of a 4th Regiment, or even 3rd for that matter. On the next page, (63), "By 1804 there were 12 such regiments..." (referring to the Cuirassiers), of which a 4th Cuirassier Regiment was present, formed in 1643.) By second reference is Smith's 1998 "Napoleon's Regiments: Battle Histories of the Regiments of the French Army, 1792–1815", on pages 229–230, the two carabinier regiments are described as follows "Carabiniers, Note: The following two regiments were always brigaded together on campaign." Then on page 233, a mention of the 4th Cuirassier Regiment is mentioned, this shows the 4th Cuirassiers a regiment, but not a 4th Carabiniers. My last (main) reference is Smith's "The Greenhill Napoleon Wars Data Book: Actions and Losses in Personnel, Colours, Standards and Artillery, 1792–1815", where on page 225 the oob describes "...Reserve Cavalry Corps: Joachim Murat, Grand Duke of Berg: 2nd Cuirassier Division GdD d'Hautpoul 1er CuirR (4 sqns). 1st Dragoon Division GdD Lein: 1er, 2e, 14e, 20e, and 26e DragR (20 sqns). 3rd Dragoon Division GdD Beaumont: 9e DragR (4 sqns).". Once again, no mention of a "4th Carabinier Regiment". One again, no proof of a "4th Carabinier Regiment".J-Man11 (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't speak French and I don't know much about the Napoleonic Wars, but I'm not really finding anything in RS - this isn't appearing in a few OOBs for Jena I turned up. Found some stuff about a similarly-named 20th-century Belgian unit, but nothing in RS for this one; mainly mirrors. Hog Farm Talk 04:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm Can I ask what you specifically mean by RS? J-Man11 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources I found that mention this unit appear to be copying Wikipedia, with the exception of a probably unreliable blog that claimed there was a 4th Carabinier Regiment in the Russian forces later in the Napoleonic Wars. Hog Farm Talk 21:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further ref - George Nafziger's order of battle for Jena-Austerstadt again shows only the 1st and 2nd Carabiniers at the battle. Online here. J-Man11 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I too have only ever heard of two carabinier regiments in the French Army. If it can be proved to have existed then obviously, as a battalion-sized unit, it is notable, but otherwise it's probably a mistake. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the reasons above, additionally: there are no references on the articl, there is no French article version of the subject, and my search for references came up empty.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - given that it's been two weeks and nobody's been able to verify that this regiment ever existed, I feel comfortable moving to delete. This article is probably an error. Hog Farm Talk 02:35, 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 Nonlinear dimensionality reduction. MBisanz talk 19:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probabilistic learning on manifolds edit

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

PROD was removed by article creator with no explanation. The article has a broad title, but the author clearly conceives of it as a particular method from a particular 5-year old research paper. The paper has a reasonable number of citations on Google Scholar, but a majority of them are self-citations, and I see no evidence that this particular method is significant, influential, or otherwise notable.

At the time of nomination, the article has little content of encyclopedic value (e.g., what the technique is or how it works). This isn't necessarily problematic for a brand-new article, but combined with the creator's other editing (Draft:Christian Soize, about one of the co-authors of the reference in this article, and Nonparametric probabilistic approach, another ridiculously broad title for a particular method in a paper authored by Soize), this raises clear COI issues. JBL (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do people think as a redirect as an WP:ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepti Pillay Sivan edit

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The 4-5 sources found via google search do not satisfy even WP:BASIC. Also, notability is not inherited. VV 08:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please take a look at the new sources added by User:Jehowahyereh.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - difficult discussion, especially given the sources added since the AfD was filed, but still a borderline delete. The subject accrued a decent level of media coverage in 2018 and had their film nominated (with one win) for international awards - however, this coverage is mostly centered on the documentary itself and is likely not enough to fulfil WP:DIRECTOR. Post 2018 coverage of the subject is also lacking, implying that other parts of WP:DIRECTOR (i.e being widely cited by peers and producing a significant body of work) have not been met. Maybe in the future the subject will continue to accrue more coverage, but it is WP:TOOSOON for now. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is Post 2018 coverage about the subject, The documentary film got selected to Toronto International Film Festival and won the Best Biographical Film award in Toronto International Women Film Festival in 2021 and I have added significant news reference which talks about it and the subject in detail which were published in 2021.I feel that the article deserved to be Kept. Jehowahyereh (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 3rd and 4th point of WP:DIRECTOR met and thus passes WP:DIRECTOR Jehowahyereh (talk) 17:27, 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 23:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weldon Prize (disambiguation) edit

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

No disambiguation needed - only one entry with an article in Wikipedia. Leschnei (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to H3h3Productions#The H3 Podcast and spin-offs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frenemies (podcast) edit

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

Coverage mostly by tabloid media, see WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNP. News articles mentioning the podcast focus on statements made by the people on the podcast rather than the podcast itself. Coverage of the article's subject is thereby trivial. Reliability of Insider (which the article solely relies on currently) is not conclusive. Throast (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as creator: I have added some extra sources outside of Insider, though I will admit that the podcast's mention in these sources is fleeting. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind to list a few mainstream sources outside of Insider, PopBuzz, Mashable, Dexerto, and other tabloid websites whose reliability is questionable? I can't find a New York Times article discussing the subject. Many of the sources I find discuss statements made by the people on the podcast, rather than the podcast itself as a subject. Coverage has to be significant per WP:GNG. Trivial mentions don't suffice to establish notability. Throast (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean they they discuss the statements on the podcast rather than the podcast itself. The NYT article I was referring to about the podcast itself forthcoming from Taylor Lorenz. That said, I think PantheonRadiance‘s suggestion of a merge may be more apt. 2601:6C0:C102:DD40:D8B:2F0D:4CA4:66DD (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should change your vote from "Keep" to "Merge" then. Throast (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't understand what is it with Wikipedia users constantly resorting to deleting YouTube articles on first instinct. Seeing as how most of the sources seem trivial and consist of "statements made by the people on the podcast," wouldn't it be more reasonable to add the Frenemies information and sources from this article to both Ethan and/or Trisha's pages instead? That way such information can be preserved and accessible while also contributing to both of their notability statuses, and the article wouldn't completely go to waste. There could simply be a section dedicated to the Frenemies podcast seeing as how the coverage isn't nearly in-depth enough to justify a full article by itself, but reflects a part of the history of both Ethan and Trisha's careers. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I've nominated this article for deletion is because its notability as a standalone subject is questionable. A subject that's not notable should not have its own separate article, therefor it should be deleted. That doesn't rule out merging its contents with other articles. As you can see at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes, "Merge" is a perfectly valid argument to make in a deletion discussion. Throast (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, my apologies for the brashness; I was in a bit of a dour mood yesterday when I wrote this. But I still think that for now, maybe merging the article to either Ethan or Trisha's pages would be the best course of action. If any new information arises from reliable sources, perhaps we could recreate the article at a later date (although it may seem unlikely seeing that the podcast has reportedly ended).PantheonRadiance (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. And move info pertaining to the two hosts to their respective articles. Throast (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting also seems reasonable; I originally suggested Merge because I figured the podcast's mention on their respective articles was quite terse. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:31, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Richards (internet personality) edit

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

Sources are not RS. Subject does not seem to be notable. Not enough coverage from RS. Bvcqszj (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found plenty of news sources including this and this (which suggests an association with Mark Wahlberg) in a Google News search. I think we need to realise that it's possible to have notability purely by being on YouTube these days (I'd give examples, but you know....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plainly notable based on available sourcing in article and those provided by Ritchie333 above.--- Possibly (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aigul Nuryieva edit

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

This is a publicity piece, I've no doubt about that; I just don't know whether it was meant to be positive or negative publicity (my guess is the latter). I've removed a lot of irrelevant verbiage about companies that the person is associated with, and what remains doesn't come even close to notability, of any flavour. Searching is tricky, given the different variants of the name, but I found nothing of import. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You duplicated one of the links (#2 = #3). Those links are talking about the subject selling her shares and buying a Cypriot passport. That's why I mentioned that the subject is only famous for being rich. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability isn't impossible here as I haven't reviewed the Russian sources. She fails WP:GNG looking at the available English sources, which I admit would be a largely meaningless AfD vote except for the fact this is clearly some sort of promotional piece. I agree it's difficult to tell if this is a "good" or "bad" promotional piece, but if it can't be reformed, I support a WP:TNT deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 14:36, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 19:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational 2017 edit

Miss Supranational 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As other years of this pageant have been deleted via AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination)), the following should also. All the sources are basically local news reporting on the country's delegate. The yearly events themselves do not seem to have notability besides pageant spotters.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miss Supranational 2016 I'd like to add this article to this discussion. I deleted it due to a previous AFD decision and was asked by an editor to restore it and add this year to the current AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed to meet WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss and Mister Supranational decision was to keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 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 and salt. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madhav Mahajan edit

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Mostly interviews, announcements and press releases. No reliable independent sources having in depth coverage. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ranks of the Civil Air Patrol. MBisanz talk 19:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet grades and insignia of the Civil Air Patrol edit

Cadet grades and insignia of the Civil Air Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content merged to Ranks of the Civil Air Patrol but added this content plus senior member and technical grades. DoctorTexan (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DoctorTexan (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more, in the hope that we can get some comments on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Beniquez edit

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

This individual was convicted of one murder, and I believe was charged with one other murder [22] as well as a suspect in 7 other murders, including several police officers. I previously removed content from the article about the allegations that did not result in convictions per WP:BLPCRIME after this article was brought to WP:BLPN#Adam Beniquez. After trying to find more information about the article subject, I have been unable to find any sources mentioning the article subject after February 1991. As a result of the lack of coverage since then, including for the conviction, and the lack of information on any of the allegations other than the one murder, I think this does not meet the general notability guidelines. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wanted to say keep based on the epithet of the "most wanted man in Puerto Rico", but you're right in that his other murders have kind of died in the dirt. As it stands, he's a failure of both WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E. In particular, the "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" tenet cannot be upheld. Kncny11 (shoot) 19:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe that this article is viable and can been improved. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Davidgoodheart, why do you appear to be canvassing for votes [23] [24] [25], especially after you were warned about this type of behavior less than a week ago by another editor on your talk page? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as currently stands). Sorry. Possibly I can see potential re: what this individual is notable for as opposed to (no disrespect intended) just another drug-related murder in an apartment, but looking online incl. at sites such as murderpedia.org - then looking at the contributions history of this article - it seems nobody has the time, parlance, or interest in even trying to construct the article to what it could be.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 19:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Madalone edit

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

A discussion needs to be had on notability given the overall lack of substantial sources and the flash in a pan nature of the viral music video. FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but not seeing the coverage is because it is paywalled, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the significant coverage alteady in the article such as Vice and Courier News and exercising WP:AGF as to the paywalled reliable sources identified in this discussion which seem to be dedicated coverage, passes WP:Basic in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. There is no consensus about whether the awards themselves are notable. There is some consensus that if the awards are notable they do not need to be broken into individual articles and can all appropriately covered in the main article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K-Love Fan Awards edit

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

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The litany of 'Oppose' votes are by Yard105, the creator of and primary contributor to all of these articles. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The awards are notable, the references provided are all secondary sources published accross different news sites covering Christian entertainment as well as Nashville-based media outlets. Yard105 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the sources are simply press releases. Not sure how they can be considered secondary. I'm not surprised Nashville-based papers would cover their musicians getting some recognition. That's Local coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - maybe a borderline case, but I see coverage in the Tennessean and the Advocate, and numerous Christian music publications. I think the individual awards should all be directed here, however. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Warlord. ——Serial 14:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Questionable overall awards criteria as one entity awarding artists based on their popularity on one sole radio network, and easily influenced by fan ballot stuffing, unlike the Dove Awards' broader criteria. If someone can unearth their criteria and it's not just 'fan voting + internal proprietary network stats', I would be convinced to change my vote!.Nate • (chatter) 21:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All sixteen entries have been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K-Love Fan Award for Artist of the Year edit

K-Love Fan Award for Artist of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K-Love Fan Award for Male Artist of the Year edit

K-Love Fan Award for Male Artist of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K-Love Fan Award for Female Artist of the Year edit

K-Love Fan Award for Female Artist of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K-Love Fan Award for Group/Duo of the Year edit

K-Love Fan Award for Group/Duo of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K-Love Fan Award for Song of the Year edit

K-Love Fan Award for Song of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K-Love Fan Award for Worship Song of the Year edit

K-Love Fan Award for Worship Song of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K-Love Fan Award for Breakout Single edit

K-Love Fan Award for Breakout Single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 K-Love Fan Awards edit

2021 K-Love Fan Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The references provided are all secondary sources published accross different news sites covering Christian entertainment as well as Nashville-based media outlets. Yard105 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards; no indication in a WP:BEFORE ([31]) of sufficient coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that the Awards’ discrete years of presentation are independently notable, comprising as they do passing mentions and NOT:DIR directory listings. ——Serial 14:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards per above both on the basis of notability and on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019 K-Love Fan Awards edit

2019 K-Love Fan Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The references provided are all secondary sources published accross different news sites covering Christian entertainment as well as Nashville-based media outlets. Yard105 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards; no indication in a WP:BEFORE ([32]) of sufficient coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that the Awards’ discrete years of presentation are independently notable, comprising as they do passing mentions and NOT:DIR directory listings. ——Serial 14:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards per above both on the basis of notability and on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 K-Love Fan Awards edit

2018 K-Love Fan Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The references provided are all secondary sources published accross different news sites covering Christian entertainment as well as Nashville-based media outlets. Yard105 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards; no indication in a WP:BEFORE ([33]) of sufficient coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that the Awards’ discrete years of presentation are independently notable, comprising as they do passing mentions and NOT:DIR directory listings. ——Serial 14:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards per above both on the basis of notability and on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 K-Love Fan Awards edit

2017 K-Love Fan Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The references provided are all secondary sources published accross different news sites covering Christian entertainment as well as Nashville-based media outlets. Yard105 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards; no indication in a WP:BEFORE ([34]) of sufficient coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that the Awards’ discrete years of presentation are independently notable, comprising as they do passing mentions and NOT:DIR directory listings. ——Serial 14:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards per above both on the basis of notability and on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2016 K-Love Fan Awards edit

2016 K-Love Fan Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The references provided are all secondary sources published accross different news sites covering Christian entertainment as well as Nashville-based media outlets. Yard105 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards; no indication in a WP:BEFORE ([35]) of sufficient coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that the Awards’ discrete years of presentation are independently notable, comprising as they do passing mentions and NOT:DIR directory listings. ——Serial 14:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards per above both on the basis of notability and on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2015 K-Love Fan Awards edit

2015 K-Love Fan Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The references provided are all secondary sources published accross different news sites covering Christian entertainment as well as Nashville-based media outlets. Yard105 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards; no indication in a WP:BEFORE ([36]) of sufficient coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that the Awards’ discrete years of presentation are independently notable, comprising as they do passing mentions and NOT:DIR directory listings. ——Serial 15:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards per above both on the basis of notability and on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2014 K-Love Fan Awards edit

2014 K-Love Fan Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The references provided are all secondary sources published accross different news sites covering Christian entertainment as well as Nashville-based media outlets. Yard105 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards; no indication in a WP:BEFORE ([37]) of sufficient coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that the Awards’ discrete years of presentation are independently notable, comprising as they do passing mentions and NOT:DIR directory listings. ——Serial 15:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards per above both on the basis of notability and on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 K-Love Fan Awards edit

2013 K-Love Fan Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable award. The sources are primarily brief or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The references provided are all secondary sources published accross different news sites covering Christian entertainment as well as Nashville-based media outlets. Yard105 (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards; no indication in a WP:BEFORE ([38]) of sufficient coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that the Awards’ discrete years of presentation are independently notable, comprising as they do passing mentions and NOT:DIR directory listings. ——Serial 15:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to K-Love Fan Awards per above both on the basis of notability and on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Ackerley edit

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

Fails WP:BLP - largely consists of uncited claims. I removed most sources back in January because they did not assert any included claim or mention the subject (see special:diff/998999413), no changes have been made or sources added since. If uncited claims are removed as-is, the article would be largely blank, save for a single academic paper.  A S U K I T E  15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  A S U K I T E  15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  A S U K I T E  15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This article may well be the most shameless, unabashed WP:AUTOBIO/WP:RESUME I've ever seen at AfD – created by an SPA and brimming with promotional garbage. The most substantial coverage I can find of this subject is from patently unreliable (see: WP:RSP) tabloids, namely The Sun (deprecated), Metro (generally unreliable), Daily Mirror (I've heard it aptly called the "'least worst' of the British tabloids"), and of course the Daily Mail (triply deprecated by RfC). This article, about a non-notable subject, is a trash fire and a blemish on the project that's overstayed its welcome by 12 too many years. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The creator of this article, OooFrankie is definitively, undoubtedly an undisclosed paid contributor. On March 17, 2009, not even a week after creating Lisa Ackerley, this editor – then known as Hygiene Audit Systems – had their username changed. They then proceeded to remove from their talk page any trace of the conversation indicating their username was inappropriate. Note, our current article on Ackerley reads: "Ackerley sold her business which she had run with Graham Murphy since 1987, Hygiene Audit Systems Ltd in 2015 but is still hands on, appearing as an expert witness from time to time giving evidence on food safety issues." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – By definition, neither of these citations confer notability, as neither of them are independent of the subject. The first link is merely a brief press release about the charity hiring Ackerley as a trustee. Furthermore, the second link merely mentions Ackerley's name as a trustee but does not go into any substantial detail whatsoever as would be required to confer notability. This argument is therefore entirely erroneous as it pertains to WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NACADEMIC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to (G)I-dle. This was close, but there is a narrow consensus to redirect here, noting the strength of the arguments. I find Explicit's contributions the most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to reverse this deletion/redirect? its been 3 years and she has done many notable things now. 74.62.210.218 (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Shuhua edit

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

Other users are assuming that accepted draft implies notability. But on what grounds is this artist notable? Let's start the discussion here then.

There are no evidence of individual notability in a musical career. No albums or works. Trivial appearances on TV just like all other Kpop artists. The article, as written, has pretty trivial mentions in references. Evaders99 (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At worst, you'll end up with a redirect to (G)I-dle, which is already WP:N. Article was in draft for five months, and pulled here after two days out of draft space. Subject seems notable enough, proper BLP sources, drafting has served its proper purpose. Nate • (chatter) 02:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Mrschimpf. In fact, this article is not the only one not meeting individual notability. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Surely being "not the only one not meeting individual notability" is incentive to bring these other articles to AFD as well. Abdotorg (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Abdotorg: Yea right ... and I meant article created since 2016. Btw, you edit or patrolled it before also, last I checked it hasn't been AfD before or yet. However, I'm not going to name what the article name is, if you're curious, you can go dig your contributions one by one. Peace out! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is notable enough to be kept, but it is at it's borderline. We've been carefully selecting reliable sources for five months in the draft space, and it passed AfC. YehWolf [🐺 • 🍒] 03:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Mrschimpf --IamMM (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Redirect to to (G)I-dle until the individual meets WP:NMG, appearing on ISAC and in a music video is not notable. Abdotorg (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to (G)I-dle. Nothing I am seeing in the article sourcing is showing me the subject passes WP:GNG independently of the group. Missvain (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Mrschimpf and User:Yehwolf. The article has a certain amount of reliable sources, and the subject is notable enough. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to to (G)I-dle, can't find 3 reliable sources which makes it individually notable. Sonofstar (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 孫伊萱 (2021-06-04). "舒華《玩很大》開心合體憲哥 自豪「體力佳」豁出去零偶包". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.

      This is an extensive profile of the subject.

    2. 羅湘; 林宏宇; 張哲儒 (2018-04-19). "獨／高顏值台女韓出道　「泫雅師妹」18歲舒華高中照曝光" (in Chinese). SET News. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.

      The article discusses the subject's biographical background including her early life.

    3. 홍성훈 (2020-09-22). "[화보] (여자)아이들 슈화, 소년과 소녀의 경계 매력 화보 공개!". 내외뉴스통신 (in Korean). Retrieved 2021-06-06.
    4. 이수민 (2020-09-22). "(여자)아이들 슈화, 소녀와 소년의 경계…보이시 매력" (in Korean). Newsis. Archived from the original on 2021-06-06. Retrieved 2021-06-06.

      The article discusses her appearance on the cover of a Korean magazine independent of (G)I-dle.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yeh Shuhua to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is enough coverage about Yeh Shuhua to justify a standalone article. It would be undue weight to cover her biographical background and her independent activities in (G)I-dle. Cunard (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. The first two sources they listed have many paragraphs of coverage of Yeh Shuhua. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to (G)I-dle. As an admin who is actually capable of going through the Korean-language sources, the keep arguments are so incredibly off here. While it is true that the article is cushioned by two dozen references, the keep arguments failed to note that many of them don't mention Shuhua directly. Specifically, by reference number as of this revision:
  1. She is mentioned in passing in a news article about Lai Kuan-lin.
  2. This article is about (G)I-dle. She is not mentioned directly.
  3. This is a press release about photos she posted on Instagram.
  4. This is her record label's website.
  5. This a video of a (G)I-dle interview.
  6. This a video teaser.
  7. This is about her appearance on Knowing Bros, as part of promotion with (G)I-dle.
  8. This article is about (G)I-dle. She is not mentioned directly.
  9. This is an article about photos teasers for (G)I-dle's forthcoming debut at the time.
  10. She is mentioned in passing as simply being a member of the group.
  11. This article is about (G)I-dle. She is not mentioned directly.
  12. This article is about (G)I-dle. She is not mentioned directly.
  13. This article is about (G)I-dle. She is not mentioned directly.
  14. She is mentioned in passing that she placed third in rhythmic gymnastics at Idol Star Athletics Championships (henceforth ISAC).
  15. She is mentioned in for placing second place in game during ko:2020 추석특집 아이돌 멍멍 선수권대회, a Chuseok holiday variety show.
  16. This is about her appearance on Knowing Bros, as part of promotion with (G)I-dle.
  17. This is a video about her leaving from the KBS Song Festival.
  18. This article is about her at the KBS Song Festival and she is simply quoted.
  19. This is Weibo social media post by a company she worked with (?).
  20. This is Weibo social media post by a company she worked with (?).
  21. This one arguably actually goes in depth about being on a variety show in Taiwan, her home country.
  22. Routine coverage that she is appearing ISAC and she is quoted for saying she practiced a lot.
  23. Similar to reference 21.
  24. This is an article about her debut with (G)I-dle.

The references provided by Cunard above:

  1. 獨／高顏值台女韓出道　「泫雅師妹」18歲舒華高中照曝光 is essentially a copy of reference 24, which indicates a press release.
  2. [화보 (여자)아이들 슈화, 소년과 소녀의 경계 매력 화보 공개!] and (여자)아이들 슈화, 소녀와 소년의 경계…보이시 매력 are routine press releases that announce her pictorial with BEAUTY+.

She is not independently notable. ✗plicit 04:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "獨／高顏值台女韓出道　「泫雅師妹」18歲舒華高中照曝光" from SET News was published on 19 April 2018. Reference 14 was published on 3 May 2018. It is possible that the Nius News article (which I did not include in my list of sources) closely paraphrased some of its content from the SET News article (which I included in my list of the sources). But the articles are not identical. The SET News article notes: "葉舒華國小老師林容萱：「國小時代，情人節的時候就有人送她巧克力，她個性是文靜的，但是在5年級我們在做自治市長的推選時，班上同學是推舉她，這件事我倒是比較訝異了一下，但是她也滿有大將之風。」" From Google Translate: "Lin Rongxuan, a teacher at Ye Shuhua's elementary school said, 'In elementary school, someone gave her chocolate on Valentine's Day. Her personality is quiet, but in the fifth grade, when we were electing the mayor of the municipality, the classmates recommended her. I was a little surprised, but she is filled with leadership qualities.'"

    The Nius News article does not contain this quote. I searched for " "國小時代，情人節的時候就有人送她巧克力" and did not find it in any press releases. I can find no evidence that the SET News article is from a press release. The bylined Newsis article from a Korean news agency discusses her solo appearance (without the other members of her group) on the cover of the Korean magazine BEAUTY+. The Korean news agency article is not a press release. It is a brief article but it contributes to notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

    I agree that reference 21 from China Times and reference 23 from Eastern Broadcasting Company's zh:ETtoday新聞雲 provide significant biographical coverage about her in the context of her appearance on a variety show in Taiwan (without the other members of her group). These two 2020 sources by themselves are enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and show that she is notable independent of her group. In combination with the 2018 SET News article, Yeh Shuhua more clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: I meant that they are copies in that the essence is the same, even if written differently. "She's so young! She has attracted a lot of attention!" That's standard press release fanfare. And, as expected, a portion of those articles rely on her being quoted. A teacher from the elementary school she attended being quoted is also not independent coverage, clearly.
The NBN News article is a press release. There are exact copies with miniscule differences found on Sports Dong-a and News Pic. For Newsis, aside from their first paragraph, copies are easy to find: second paragraph here, except the latter adds "완벽히" and removes "보이시한"; the third paragraph is shared with NBN News, except Newsis ends their sentence at "...통해 깜짝 공개될 예정이다" while Newsis continues theirs with "...통해 깜짝 공개될 예정으로...", etc.
I gave these Chinese-language sources another go (I was crunched for time by the time I got to them in my previous post), the China Times source seems to rehash what she did on the show, that she visited her family, and that she opened an Instagram account. The ETtoday references is another recap of what transpired in the episode. This is the standard of "significant coverage"? What encyclopedic content can we write with this? And even worse, this article is nothing more than a list of "she did this" and "she did that" in context of her talking about herself. WP:PRIMARY at its finest. The "2016–2017: Pre-debut activities" section is based on interviews except the last sentence, where the source doesn't mention her directly. The "2018–present: (G)I-dle and solo activities" section is where the passing mentions kick in. Please note that WP:BASIC states the subject may be considered notable. It is not a guarantee. ✗plicit 06:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the 내외뉴스통신 and Newsis articles per your analysis. I consider the remaining sources sufficient to establish notability. The 2018 China Times article discusses the subject being a native of Taoyuan, attending the Ye Shuhua Elementary School, attending for one year the Huagang Art School's drama department before going to South Korea, appearing in actor Yoo Seon-ho's music video, joining the girl group (G)I-DLE at age 18, and being compared to Taeyeon. This covers her "directly and in detail" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline). The 2020 SET News article discusses how the subject is a member of the Korean girl group (G)I-DLE, is Taiwanese, rarely returns to Taiwan but returned in March 2021, on returning she participated on the Taiwanese variety show "Mr. Player", created an Instagram account that surpassed 400,000 followers in one day, and has a large number of fans in Taiwan and South Korea. The Eastern Broadcasting Company's zh:ETtoday新聞雲 article discusses the subject's performance on the Taiwanese variety show "Mr. Player" and viewers' perception of her. With three articles devoted to discussing her biographical background and her activities, there is enough non-WP:PRIMARY biographical background here to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says that a subject who received significant coverage in reliable sources is notable if she does not meet WP:BLP1E or WP:NOT, neither of which apply to her as she is not known for one event and she does not fall under any of the WP:NOT criteria. Cunard (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect t, accepting Explicit's analysis of the sources. This sort of pseudo-reference is increasingly present , and implies promotionalism The alternative is delete, because of the promotionalism. . DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the convincing analysis by Explicit.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 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. MBisanz talk 19:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Papagan edit

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

While cleaning up the list of candidates at 2021 California gubernatorial recall election I stumbled across this article. He doesn't seem to meet any of the requirements of WP:NMUSIC or WP:NPOL, and though there is some coverage in reliable sources it's quite superficial. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting case. I would lean towards inclusion, mainly because of this, but with the sourcing I found he's not clearly notable. Hopefully someone else can dig up something more substantive, because I think given his various involvements, it does make sense to have an article here (a weakness of the notability policy, really). Elli (talk | contribs) 07:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Curator of a museum is often enough to demonstrate notability but curator of a "pop-up museum"? I'm not convinced. From reading the article Elli linked, I would describe it more accurately as a one-man gallery showing, analogous to WP:NARTIST. Having one covered gallery showing does not yet raise to the level of significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 20:01, 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 13:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raashi edit

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

Doesn't qualify notability for TV Shows. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two of the references are minor/promotional. Two of the references do not name the subject. My search for references did not find anything to add. Jeepday (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the nom and assessment of the sources. 1&2 are not independent. 3&4 are not even about the show itself. - 2pou (talk) 22:31, 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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flower (American band) edit

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

Easily fails WP:GNG and no claim to meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Album released on Semaphore Records and Simple Machines, online coverage includes a substantial Allmusic bio [39], plus [40], [41], [42], [43], but most of the coverage that exists is likely to be in offline print sources from the 1980s. --Michig (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Still don't know how you find such great sources when I do my WP:BEFORE I come up empty! Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guz Hardy & J Luke edit

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

no evidence this is notable, i can't find an actual source for billboard charting, so fails nmusic BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Praxidicae I strongly disagree. The group is notable enough. If you deep research on Google, you can find huge amount of websites featuring them and press about them. And FYI, Billboard Chart Lists are not archived or they do not appear once the listing is updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3FAULTX8 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and there is no reliable evidence that these two Billboard charts even exist at all. No good independent sources for these artists are available otherwise[44]. Fram (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was spotted on Top 50 Radio Airplay is not an indication they meet music notability guidelines, and a BEFORE shows no other indication they do. Star Mississippi 16:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apart from the obligatory promo interview in Electro Mag there is nothing about this artist Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:12, 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. MBisanz talk 19:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marmo (musician) edit

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

non-notable coatrack of an article - hasn't charted, hasn't gotten in depth coverage and appears to be mostly covered by blackhat SEO and pay for publishing sites. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artist has been featured on New York Billboards and featured on multiple big magazines. Also, his song 'Fed Up' is known. I don't get where you researched the information? Wikipedia Rules clearly says if the artist have fame outside the digital form, it is considered as eligible for Wikipedia. This artist is also signed to Universal Music Group as per i researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3FAULTX8 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What source says that Marmo is signed to UMG? BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, He co-produced 's album 'EMO' which released on Universal which also got him to UMG. If you need proofs, you can use these links 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUIYNrG3Hqs [See Description - Author: Stefano Galliotta] 2. https://genius.com/Gionnyscandal-imperfetta-lyrics#song-info [Check written by (Credits) section] — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3FAULTX8 (talk c contribs) 17:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah neither of those are reliable sources, nor do they even insinuate that Marmo is signed to UMG. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praxidicae, I kindly request you to know more about Major record label's contract and signing procedures. When someone is releasing a single on UMG, even the collaborators has to sign as a songwriter or artist contract. They have different contracts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3FAULTX8 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Therefore, the artist meets criteria under Wikipedia:Notability (music) (Criteria for musicians and ensembles): 1,2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3FAULTX8 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop bludgeoning the discussion for a hot second and learn to WP:SIGN your posts and then read the criteria you're citing? Because you're really only serving to make a mess here while also proving my point. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, no offence, but clearly I request you to take a look the music notability criteria as I know the artist clearly falls under many of the criteria . Let me know, thanks D3FAULTX8 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No coverage I could find in my search that would contribute to notability. Fails WP:BIO. JavaHurricane 07:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the Wikipedia:Notability (music)? D3FAULTX8 (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is covered under the failure of WP:BIO. Also, please declare whatever relation you have with the subject of the article. JavaHurricane 08:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi User:JavaHurricane, I found this artist online through his hit song "Fed Up"...I followed him on socials and decided to write a page after I found out that he was featured on NY Times Square Billboards. And I searched deep the articles about him and of the content I wrote on the page. In order for me to verify that he was signed to UMG, I checked on YouTube (Topic channels provide info on which label distributed the track) and I also checked Genuis (largest lyric platform) and also found the info that he co-produced GionnyScandal's Emo album. He has also several successful releases. How come he fails WP:BIO when the artist: 1. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. 2. Has releases on Major labels. 3. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, TV Show: Lo Zoo di 105 4. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 5. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. 6. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. 7. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.

I would like to request you to please re-check again. Thank you so much! D3FAULTX8 (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, none of your arguments hold any water. All 7 of your points are incorrect per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, please be very truthful in describing your relationship with the subject. Undisclosed paid editing is absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia, and it is also a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. Undisclosed paid editors are indefinitely blocked. Please, therefore, be truthful. Thanks. JavaHurricane 01:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own assessment of the sources agrees with Praxidicae's. There are also plenty of great contradictions in the article: Is he an independent artist, or is he signed to UMG, etc? Notability aside, none of the claims in the article are particularly verifiable. If someone were to go through and strip out all of the naff sources, and everything that fails verification (and I am sorely tempted), I don't think we'd have an article at all. Delete, with a reminder to the article creator that WP:BLUDGEONING is not behaviour representative of a collaborative attitude. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 12:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who is making the keep arguments seems to be confusing an artist signing an agreement to use Universal Music Group's client distribution services--which is available to anyone--with being a signed artist to one of their many labels. They are not the same thing. 3/4 of all music today is made available through the small handful of major music groups distribution outlets, of which UMG is one. What is lacking here is a source that verifies this artist is a signed recording artist with UMG. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:06, 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 13:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Allen Hewitt edit

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Edwardx (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no indication of notability and basically nothing on Google Scholar or JSTOR (3 mentions, no book reviews). Fails NPROF. --hroest 17:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPROF and not convinced passes WP:NAUTHOR either. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:51, 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 14:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thisai Kovilkal edit

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

Fails WP:NBUILDING, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Maps123.net; elisting.info; Mapio.net and Cartiograffe.com are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. Dan arndt (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any proof of these existing, at least under the name this article has. I'm pretty sure these exist, but they're clearly just a few regular temples, and there's really no need to document every place of worship. Also it's really, uh... religiously promotive? Like, it outright states in full certainty that you can get your debts cancelled if you pray at Kannagi Amman Potkovil. I don't think that's ever happened, and if it has, well, we'd have enough information on it to keep this here, would we not? AdoTang (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Privately held company. per DICDEF and no independent notability as a term Nosebagbear (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent business edit

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

Obviously, the term "independent business" is commonly used in English language. But this article is half WP:DICTDEF and half WP:OR. In my BEFORE, sure, I see plenty of works using this term, but none defining it for either scholarship or legal uses. Maybe this can be rescued, but if so, this needs a WP:TNT and rewrite from scratch with proper definititions and sources anyway (and, as I said, I didn't see any soruces in my BEFORE that jumped out as lending themselves to this task anyway, which also suggests a likely fail of WP:GNG here). PS. Not sure if the redirect to American Independent Business Alliance makes sense... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that the sources are not of the depth needed to meet the higher NCORP bar. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PropertyGuru (company) edit

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

clear case of Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, majorly having refs from just one source The Straits Times, Discussion on it will clearify the scenario more. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 11:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 11:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a protocol for dealing with WP:MILL articles which if followed would have lead the nominator to consider WP:ATD. The claim that the article "majorly having refs from just one source The Straits Times" is not justified. The subject has wp:sigcov meeting the wp:3REFS minimum in wp:RS one of which, [1] is listed green at WP:RSP (Bloomberg News). In regards to The Straits Times, it's WP entry says, "daily average circulation of 364,134 and 364,849 respectively in 2017" and while there is some criticism further down the page alluding to its unreliability for politically charged matters there is no consensus at WP:RSN stating that The Straits Times is unreliable for purposes of establishing WP:NCORP. Additionally, the WP for Business Times (Singapore) reads "The Business Times is Singapore's only financial daily" and although it shares the same parent company as The Straits Times it hasn't been part of the paper for almost half a century. There's also significant coverage in CNA (TV network) [2] one of Singapore's national news channels, all of which adds up to WP:NCORP.Black crows circling (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Li, Fiona (2021-06-08). "TPG-Backed PropertyGuru Eyes $2 Billion Thiel SPAC Deal". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 2021-06-15.
  2. ^ "Singapore's PropertyGuru raises S$200m funding from KKR". CNA (TV network). 2018-10-31. Retrieved 2021-06-08.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaon Dastak (GD Live) edit

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

Non notable news website. lack of WP:RS which are independent of the subject. Advert of the website. GermanKity (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piercing Mildred edit

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The most substantial mentions of this game I can find are eight sentences in the Orlando Sentinel, a very short paragraph in Wired, and finally, an esoteric mention in a German magazine – which I could find no information on – called Pizz@. The creator of the article seems to be an SPA; essentially every edit besides one relates to Piercing Mildred or its creators (e.g. Domenico Tassone) in some way. This leads me to believe there's an undisclosed conflict of interest with the subject, though it's clear to me based on the low frequency of editing and the nature of the unrelated edit that if this were the case, it's at least in good faith – i.e. they're somebody trying to share their passionate knowledge about the game, not somebody trying to game Wikipedia in any way. Nevertheless, the article simply doesn't meet inclusion criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechnician27 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Worth mentioning that an article for Domenico Tassone has been deleted twice, within weeks of each other, alongside one for the company he co-founded. Links to both now-deleted articles appear in the article creator's other contributions. I don't want to assume bad faith here but this is a really, really narrow SPA with a COI in my eyes. (But do correct me if I'm wrong, I've never participated in an AfD before!) --Velvetune! t • c 00:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to abstain, for now, as I've grasped the ropes a bit more since and don't trust my initial evaluation, and in light of BennyOnTheLoose's comment. Velvetune! t • c 19:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Further sources found via newspapers.com.
Articles with adequate coverage to count towards meeting GNG, in my opinion:
Daily News (New York, New York) 17 Sep 1995, Business Page 4 - a few paragraphs.[45]
The Daily Herald (Provo, Utah) 17 Sep 1995, Sun Page 50 - a few paragraphs.[46]
The Orlando Sentinel / Chicago Tribune article mentioned above.part1,part2
Shorter mentions:
The Guardian (London, Greater London, England) 26 Jul 1995, Page 11: a couple of paragraphs.[47]
The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) 18 Nov 2000, Icon page 14 - one paragraph.[48]
The Daily Times (Salisbury, Maryland) 02 Feb 1997, Page 20 - one paragraph.[49]
The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ) 01 Nov 1996, Page 54 - one paragraph.[50]
Also The Observer (London, Greater London, England) 01 Mar 1998, Life, page 66,[51] mentions that there was coverage of the game in a BBC Two show. It's a weak keep from me for now, but I'll watchlist the discussion page as I may change my mind later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC) (Looks like the game is in The World's Weirdest Web Pages and the People who Create Them too. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: Note that the articles in Daily News and The Daily Herald are exact copies of that in The Orlando Sentinel and that paper's Joe Kilsheimer is credited as the author in all three. In The World's Weirdest Web Pages (archive.org; pp. 96–99) are three pages of a very weirdly formatted interview (~600 words including questions and answers) and a short what-if introduction. I'm yet to make up my mind but if The Orlando Sentinel is the only in-depth, independent, secondary coverage, WP:GNG (WP:42) or WP:NVG might not be met. IceWelder [✉] 12:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can the sources above be hyperlinked, to ease review of them by others? Both parties present compelling arguments (there are sources - they are bad). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: Added above. I clipped both parts of The Orlando Sentinel story so the author credit is preserved. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 07:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • IceWelder, Thanks. The 'longer' mentions are so-so quality, and they are all in fact the one and the same article by the same author reprinted in different outlets. The shorter ones are "capsule reviews" at most. Overall, this is very borderline. In the meantime, I found a mention of the game in one academic work: [52] but I don't have full view of this outside this: "For a look at a unique use of humor, check out www.mildred.com. Dave Skwarczek, principal of Streams Online Media Development, has created an interactive application called "Piercing Mildred," using body piercing as a metaphor to explain how the Web works". And a look at Google Books gives us more passing mentions, the site was clearly noticed enough to be listed in quite a few "weird Internet trivia" lists. Out of those, it was mentioned in the PC Mag [53] (but it's just a short paragraph again). Another academic mention might be here: [54]. This might be reliable: [55]. It might have been discussed here, but I can't get a preview. From the academic perspective, this has some relevance to health/fashion (body) topics, and seems to be mentioned on the margins of not just "weird trivia" works like the "CyberHound's Internet Guide to the Coolest Stuff Out There" (1996) but also of some more sciency books (wonder if this is a textbook]?). Wow, this is a fun weird borderline case. For now I'll go with the abstain crowd, it would be fun to rescue this, but it won't be easy. What we have is pretty much a few dozens of reliable-ish, independent but trivial/WP:SIGCOV-failing mentions, variations of "look at this weird website", and copyright as usual obscures most of what is out there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - Headpress gets a look-in to increase my 90s throwback vibe. I have some early issues somewhere but not the one that would have Piercing Mildred in. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to get a look at Composing Cyberspace: Identity, Community, and Knowledge in the Electronic Age, which is indeed a textbook. Bizarrely, the relevant chapter is by Dave Barry and has exactly the same text about the game as in his Dave Barry in Cyberspace which is now cited in the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Review those first three sources again: They're the same article by Joe Kilsheimer. They're attributed in the syndicated reprints. The other links are passing mentions. We can't write an article that does justice to the subject on these sources alone and there are no viable merge targets. Please {{ping}} me if you find otherwise. czar 02:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as mentioned earlier, I may well change my vote, but could somebody point me to the policy about multiple instances of a syndicated article and notability etc.? I've seen syndicated articles in other circumstances (e.g. Bob Dylan album reviews) so I'd like to understand our policy. Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC) Also, I've added some content - trying to avoid real WP:REFBOMBing as there appear to be quite a few short mentions in 1990s web books etc. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Czar. Fails WP:SIGCOV,4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Harron edit

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

This is an autobiography by a postdoc who has only written one published paper and appears in just a few blog posts. Being a postdoc and having blog coverage are not real notability for a scientist. 12.88.178.218 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Completing nomination of behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 03:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 04:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 04:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete she clearly fails WP:NPROF with a two published papers in GS (the first of which has a respectable 25 citations), but she also seems to have had some impact through advocacy. However to fulfill WP:GNG with her advocacy she would need more than a few blog posts and the fact that she wrote her thesis with lay people in mind. I dont see a wider reception of her thesis in the general press except the Scientific American blog which is still a blog. --hroest 15:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Clearly non-notable as an academic, and fails the GNG, as the only quasi reliable source (interview) I could find was the article on The Hindu. PK650 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - interestingly, I'm inclined to think that either BASIC or even AUTHOR could apply here, in the way that her thesis is being review somewhat more akin to a book that as a regular academic paper. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - thanks to pburka for their work on identifying sources. I think there is just enough in terms of independent coverage for a keep. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:BASIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. The sources are mainly interviews which do not display the level of independence necessary to establish SIGCOV, or are from non-notable institutions or think tanks with an agenda which is suspect for proving notability in an encyclopedia. Some of them are institutions with direct professional ties to Piper Harron. Ultimately, fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She doesn't meet WP:NPROF.All sources are majorly interview no independent sources— Trap133 (talk) 03:35, 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 redirect to Koo (social network). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aprameya Radhakrishna edit

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

I don't find the coverage in-depth and independent in reliable sources. The subject can not inherit notability of the companies he founded directly. I had put a PROD but it was removed. So bringing it here. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 19:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Rajasekharan edit

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

Winner of non-notable beauty pageant. Fails notability guidelines. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable beauty pageant winner, model and an actor working in the South Indian film industry. See the sources by; timesofindia, deccanherald, timesofindia, beautypageants.indiatimes.com
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mims Mentor (talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject failed to meet WP:GNG, non-notable actor and non-notable pageant winner.---Richie Campbell (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by GRuban and those cited in the article. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 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 10:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Itchy & Scratchy episodes edit

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

Per WP:NLIST and WP:DIRECTORY, the group of Itchy and Scratchy episodes is not discussed significantly in reliable sources from what I can find, and I do not think a summary of every Itchy and Scratchy episode is noteable in itself. The references and external links on the page currently are to two fansites, simpsonsarchive.org and simpsoncrazy.com. I can find a screenrant article and a Vulture article discussing the best and the writer's favorite Itchy and Scratchy episodes, but not any reliable source discussing or summarizing every episode like this article does. Sources such as those would be better in the main The Itchy & Scratchy Show article, if at all. Mousymouse (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mousymouse (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mousymouse (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mousymouse (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fan stuff that isn't discussed anywhere. It's like if we made a list of cutaway gags from Family Guy. This would probably be better on the Simpsons Wiki, and the Simpsons Wiki this is not. AdoTang (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I love the Simpsons, and in particular Itchy & Scratchy, this article is just WP:FANCRUFT and can already be found on other Simpsons fan websites. Ajf773 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure WP:FANCRUFT that can easily be found in other sources dedicated to Simpsons trivia. Kncny11 (shoot) 20:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Unencyclopedic topic. As much as I also love the Simpsons, not everything is notable that is related to that show. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:54, 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 Draftify. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bikroo Kanpur Gangster edit

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

Non notable future film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFF. Only things found were database sites and articles on the actors. Not enough to fulfill the notability requirements. Needs to be deleted or moved to draftspace until release and then notability can be established. WP:TOOSOON

PROD removed with rationale "(I think this page is now quite notable because release date also comes.)" Donaldd23 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Donaldd23:, I think this page should not be deleted because the trailer of the film has also arrived and there is some independent news reference as well. But yes, most of the news is in the Hindi language.--PQR01 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having a trailer released does not make a film notable, please read WP:NFF and then see if you think this article still passes the notability requirements for a future film. As of right now, I think it doesn't. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And release date also revealed. check here --PQR01 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still not something that establishes notability. Please read WP:NFF. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ohkay, So can we redirect the page to Nimai Bali?--PQR01 (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Soon, this is going to notable. 1друг (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Upcoming movie scheduled to be released in a few months. The editing history is worth preserving, and I don't see any reason to get rid of it. The article was certainly created too soon, but this can be safely incubated in draftspace till the movie is released and gets the sources to pass GNG, which is likely to occur. JavaHurricane 01:51, 10 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 14:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scanner (comics) edit

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources discussing the character that I can see. TTN (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Xavier Institute students and staff. MBisanz talk 19:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Garrett edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts about merging as an WP:ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Clearly several editors are on either side of the fence of keeping or deleting and seem unlikely to come to agreement. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hicks Withers-Lancashire edit

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

Not notable, and unable to find any reliable sources for the information stated in the article. The single reference refers to the sale of a property, and does not mention anything else about Withers-Lancashire. Being present during various battles and wars is not in itself notable. DferDaisy (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no suitable coverage available online. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of online coverage is utterly irrelevant to notability. Especially since this man died in 1909! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable: he had obituaries appearing in The Times, The Field and Army and Navy Gazette etc. Piecesofuk (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wasn't the above meant to be a Keep vote? RobinCarmody (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes thanks! (Added another obit from Veterinary Record journal) Piecesofuk (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly I hadn't done as good a search as I thought, sorry! I didn't realise that old Vet Records were available in the Internet Archive, learning that has made me very happy! So I'll change my nomination to keep, if such a thing is possible. DferDaisy (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obituary in The Times. An obit in a major national newspaper has always been held to be sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know it depends on the substance of the obituary and is not automatic. An online version of the obit hasn't been presented. Mztourist (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, an obit in The Times has always been held to confer notability. I can't recall any article on someone with a Times obit being deleted at AfD. And what does it being online or not matter? I can't believe you're not aware that paper sources are as valid as online ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it, where is that stated in Wikipedia:Notability (people)? To my understanding a minor obit even in a major national newspaper doesn't establish notability. Without knowing what the paper source says we can't confirm its existence or content. Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The implication here is that you're suggesting other editors are lying about the existence of a source because you can't actually see it, which would of course invalidate all paper sources, set a dangerous precedent and constitute a personal attack into the bargain. I really do hope that's not the case and you didn't actually mean what you just wrote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You want to strike this? You still haven't addressed the policy based question, where is the policy stating that a minor obit in a major national newspaper establishes notability? Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the policy that says if a source is not online then it's not valid, as you suggested above (An online version of the obit hasn't been presented.)? What establishes your right to question another editor's integrity (Without knowing what the paper source says we can't confirm its existence or content.)? So no, why would I have any intention of "striking" my comment? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that I was implying that other editors are lying which is a clear personal attack by you as I did no such thing. However I repeat, where is the policy that a minor obit in a major national newspaper establishes notability? Not one of your lists, not "when you've been on AFD as long as I have you'd know how this works" etc. Mztourist (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, you don't think that suggesting we need a source to be online to prove its existence when another editor has added a citation to that source in print is also implicitly suggesting that they might not be telling the truth about its existence? Sorry, but I think that's exactly what your suggestion implied. Sources do not need to be online to be valid, as I'm sure you well know. We don't need a policy; we simply need consensus, which we clearly have over many AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's your erroneous interpretation of my comment. We need to see it to know if the obit is just a passing mention or a substantial account. Yes you need to provide a policy-based argument as we have a policy that "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)" established notability, but WP:ANYBIO doesn't state anything about newspaper obituaries. Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The obit in The Times is available here, if anyone's curious. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant improvements in sourcing following AfD nomination. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks to Extraordinary Writ for linking The Times obituary. Would Keep !votes placing such importance on a Times obituary please explain what makes Hicks Withers-Lancashire notable as compared to John Burn-Murdoch or E. G. Monier-Williams listed on the same page, or can we look forward to pages being created of those "notables" also? Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? Just because they don't have a page so far does not mean one will never be written for them. If they were considered notable enough for an obituary in The Times then it would be a bit arrogant of Wikipedia editors to consider them not notable enough for an article here, especially given the numerous modern non-entities we seem to have articles on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having a 2-3 para obit in the Times doesn't makes anyone notable, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no family history in the Times obituary, which focusses entirely on the subject rather than their extended family. The reference to WP:NOTGENEALOGY is therefore erroneous. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • user:Andrew Davidson page was created by an SPA, so its a reasonable presumption that its their family genealogy project. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • And? That doesn't invalidate the article if it meets notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • "And" I was responding to the comment that WP:NOTGENEALOGY is not erroneous. "And" the page still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple obituaries including the The Times and so the subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what exactly is this man notable for? The "Times" obituary makes it very clear that he did nothing that was so out of the ordinary as to make him notable by Wikipedia standards: he had a long, respectable and interesting (but not unusually distinguished) career as an army vet and a happy retirement with horses. It looks as though he got the obituary because he was present at most of the battles of the Crimea incl the Charge of the Light Brigade - one of the other obits gives more details and quotes his reminiscences. He did also invent a safety stirrup - but in the absence of a lot more information on it I don't think that's enough. As for the other claims, a "Times" obituary from the 19th and early 20th centuries is not a guarantee of Wikipedia notability, however often the opposite is asserted: saying it does not make it so. Nor does WP:ANYBIO say that multiple mediocre obituaries / sources amount to notability: it says that inclusion in the DNB or equivalent national biographical dictionary is what is required, and a "Times" obituary is not that. Ingratis (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC) I almost forgot WP:BASIC, wh requires "significant" coverage in multiple etc etc: multiple obituaries of a blameless but not unusually remarkable life don't = "significant" in any terms except quantity. Ingratis (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not determined by the level of achievement: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". If someone is mediocre or not unusually distinguished then that's fine provided we have sources covering their life. Obituaries in journals of record such as The Times are fine for this purpose as they are significant coverage. Editors' personal opinions about the worthiness of subjects are irrelevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject... 'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." (bolding is mine). This is not a mechanical procedure - there is still a need for editors to exercise their critical faculties to evaluate the content of multiple sources to determine whether they amount to notability - and in this case they don't. As to your statement that "If someone is mediocre or not unusually distinguished then that's fine provided we have sources covering their life", what is the point of a collection of information about mediocrities? Ingratis (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great man theory is no longer dominant and so historiography allows for the existence and importance of more ordinary folk such as Selina Rushbrook. We therefore have articles about comparative failures such as G. Harrold Carswell who was famous for his mediocrity. We do this because this is an encyclopedia and so it encompasses most everything, not just the exceptional and extraordinary. That is our policy. The contrary view fails because it would require value judgement by people such as ourselves, who are not reputable and reliable sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be that as it may, it doesn't really address the point that WP:GNG as quoted above, WP:BASIC summarising it, and WP:ANYBIO, all say that meeting the source requirements does not give an automatic pass to notability, just a highly likely one, and this differentiation necessarily implies some kind of further assessment despite your claim that it does not and that no further thought is required. And on further assessment, the Times obituary, and the various others he picked up by virtue of being in the army, a vet and a race horse owner, do not make this man notable - in any sense of the word - except by the mechanical box-ticking process you are outlining, which I don't believe results in an encyclopaedia by the usual definitions (yours may be different) - illustrated by User:Necrothesp above asserting with no policy back-up that everyone who received a "Times" obituary is automatically notable. (If the aim is genuinely to import every Times obituary, off to Wikisource). Ingratis (talk) 19:12, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carola Remer edit

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

As I was perusing categories of model-related articles as I typically do, and I noticed not much if anything has changed here. It’s not personal but I’m nominating for deletion (again). The early life part isn’t bad, it’s the career parts I take issue with. 50% of it is unverifiable. Whatever interview The Cut source did, outside of their ~120 summary, is now a 404 error; they said go to their Model Manual for more info which they have since got rid of years ago. As you can see the page doesn’t work anymore and only a photo is left of it. But here is the Archived version of what it looked like about a decade ago. The only other source here, Die Welt, says more or less the same thing when it comes to career and that she was once on models.com's Top 50 list. Outside of these two, there is no significant coverage—at all. So I don’t believe there is enough notability. (The work isn’t un-notable, it’s about the guideline.) Trillfendi (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the time being. I broadly agree with your assessment of the sources in the article: the piece in Die Welt is the only source that comes close to being significant coverage in an independent and reliable source. If another solid piece (which the Cut one is not) were to surface, I would say that she was notable under WP:GNG. I have searched the German media and can't say that I've found one. There is no indication that she meets WP:NMODEL either. GNG might not be that far of a reach but with the currently available sourced I'd delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 19:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Kant Munjal edit

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

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

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

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

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

Not enough independent sources in reliable publications to establish WP:GNG. Most of the sources have him saying something in quotes. Not enough for WP:BASIC either. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Analysing sources pointed above. [64] Primary source. [65] - Interview and not independent. [66] - Written by himself only. So primary. The book he has written can give home some leverage at WP:Creative but we will have to dig more on that. [67] Just a quote and some opinions so not significant. [68] a podcast interview. Not independent. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are simply too many references about him. if you find some defects in references pointed out by me, others can be cited as JeanPaulMontmartre has done. Kirtos67 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm being bold and relisting this once more time - can anyone else take a look?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject is notable and probably merits a keep. But the thought of a editor with an obvious conflict of interest getting his way at the behest of hard working volunteer editors is probably the reason why more participation is not seen in this discussion.Jupitus Smart 14:28, 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 03:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian crater edit

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

Non-notable fringe theory. Only coverage is in conference abstracts and self published sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that these claims have gained some attention in the Czech press, for instance this 2007 article in Tyden magazine, as well as some interviews about the topic with Petr Rajlich, the main proponent of the claims, for instance a 2007 interview in Czech Radio, as well as a 2014 interview in the newspaper Deník, though my opinion is still delete as we cannot write a neutral, scientific article using these sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also including within the nomination Rajlich's hypothesis, which is closely related and has the same issues. 03:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm afraid I concur on both articles - Bohemian crater as well as Rajlich's hypothesis. We are lacking peer-reviewed material to base articles on. Conference abstracts are fine as supplementary refs if the foundations are shored up well by higher-quality publications, but they can't provide the sole basis (and note that all the peer-reviewed cites in both articles are about ancillary points, not the topic itself). I've seen some absolutely batshit stuff presented at conferences, apparently because the title and abstract didn't ring any alarm bells with the organizers. Not saying that this hypothesis is in that class, but I don't think there's sufficient existing sources to justify either article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur that both articles lack the proper sources and are non-notable fringe theories. The way the Bohemian crater theory disputes well established plate tectonic models without any solid, published arguments is definitely fringe in nature. Paul H. (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is well known that this crater was formed following the after effects of a particularly successful UK rock band's concert at Wembley. -Roxy . wooF 20:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with the opinion above "though my opinion is still delete as we cannot write a neutral, scientific article using these sources" Cinadon36 08:17, 10 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 03:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Mitchell edit

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

Not a notable person. WP:ONEEVENT and the article only has one source. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as the single has just been released. Schwede66 22:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Power (song) edit

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

There has been no confirmation of any single, album or any other type of release from Lorde or anyone else. Some media outlets reporting that this could be a teaser for a song does not mean that this is an upcoming release from Lorde. Confirmation should be awaited here. LivelyRatification (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on this a tad, a number of outlets have indeed reported this as "Lorde releasing new single". The AV Club reported it based on the fact that she "updated her website with the new single title and cheeky cover art." The only problem is her website, at the time of writing, doesn't mention that. There's an image of her, with Solar Power captioned, and the text "ARRIVING IN 2021 … PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE". Vulture, which is cited in the article, says only that she's teasing a single, and saying that "the New Zealand pop star updated her website on June 7, seeming to confirm her long-rumored new single “Solar Power”". I'm not going to continue with this, but from what I can see, these are all based off the mere fact that she updated her website, which contains no confirmation of anything. Some outlets, such as the NZ Herald and Stuff, also reported this as "Lorde releases new album" with the exact same evidence. It's just picking the best type of clickbait for the fact that she updated her website, and doesn't mean that she is releasing anything. We should wait for actual confirmation. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: while I am 99.9% sure this is going to be a single, I don't want this to turn into another Happier Than Ever situation where we could have (and probably did) spread misinformation to tons of people. The safest option is to delete. Redirection is still a problem as the title has the "(song)" disambiguator, and moving to "Solar Power (upcoming Lorde project)" doesn't seem like a plausible search term. It's best to just wait for further confirmation. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Redirect per [69], which is a dead link but it confirms that the song is in fact a song. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 16:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing my vote again, this time to Keep, as the song is notable/will become notable before this AfD is scheduled to end in five days. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete: Her website is confirmation. There is absolutely nothing, an absolute 0% chance that this is anything other than a single, and whether she is releasing a single called "Solar Power" or not is not a subject of debate. While I understand that it has not explicitly been said, there is no other plausible explanation for an image (which looks like a song cover, with the same aspect ratio) by a singer who is expected to return, saying that Solar Power is "arriving in 2021". As well, despite "music insiders" (people who leak stuff before officially out) are not the greatest measure to go by, it has been stated that she will release a single titled Solar Power several days ago, before any official update by Lorde. With her producer Jack Antonoff posting it too, we know it is a "project" (single) they have likely both been working on. Keeping the page up is the best option here, since the page will inevitably exist once the song is out! C.monarchist28 (let's chat!) 02:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who says it's not an album cover? Just because there's been rumours that she might release a single called "Solar Power", and she posts what looks like cover art, doesn't mean that she is releasing a single. There's no reason that we can't just wait until the single is actually confirmed by reliable sources to make an article. Regardless of what "insiders" say, the only reliable source we have currently is Lorde, who has not explicitly confirmed anything. The only thing we know for sure is that there's an image on her website. --LivelyRatification (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Look above. All the insiders thought "Happier Than Ever" was a Billie Eilish single, not an album. Wikipedia also thought it was a single. Then, a day after the initial announcement, Eilish confirmed that Happier Than Ever was the album, and that the title track was just a song. Insiders said it would be her comeback single. And, what's worse, Wikipedia thought it was a single, and we had misinformation on the site for a good 24 hours. This is the exact same situation. A vague teaser, speculation from the fans, speculation from sources, etc. Her website provides one sentence that doesn't say "Solar Power" anywhere, sources are vague (we have sources calling it an album, but there isn't a Solar Power (album) page), and the cover could be an album cover. Could you provide the reliable source where you heard this was a single days before the update? Last but not least: Antonoff posting affects nothing, as he could be posting about a song or an album. Project doesn't mean single. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, here is an example of a tweet of the insider source on June 2, a week ago talking about a single called Solar Power. Again, I understand this is only an insider source, and I somewhat get the want to delete the page as it has not been explicitly confirmed, however absolutely all of the evidence leads to one direction, and I would almost call it silly to assume it is anything but a single. -- C.monarchist28 (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • One side of me agrees with you when you say it is silly to assume it is anything but a single, as all the evidence points to that, but the Wikipedian side of me needs a reliable source to believe this is true. There is just no way to prove that this is true at this time. I have seen multiple of those Twitter posts talking about those exact songs, and, while I have to admit they do have a pretty good reputation, they are not acceptable sources to use on Wikipedia, so I will not let that affect my decision, and you shouldn't either. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 03:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lorde As a plausible redirect for now, whether it would be an album or song. If it doesn't turn out to be a song title when the album is released, this is much easier PRODed later on. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it stands now, this is, in fact, a single. Even though I initially created the article, I was also leaning towards delete since the information given by her website and the way music publications interpreted it varied greatly. However, the song appeared briefly on streaming platforms. Some sites are reporting this too. De88 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is obvious that the song is being released as a single if not today, in the coming days. And we also have to knowledge the fact that it was actually released, even if it was for a couple minutes. I already found an article from a reputable source that has all the coverage, which I already included on the article. Anonpediann (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And another source. Anonpediann (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lorde, at least until the date's confirmed. Fails WP:CRYSTAL in its current form. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 21:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Well this aged like milk! ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 22:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In light of the new information, I'd like to clarify that I don't have an issue with just redirecting the article to Lorde's discography, I think that's an acceptable solution. I don't really think the leak changes that much, tbh. We still have no confirmation that the song is going to be released by Lorde, she hasn't confirmed anything yet. In the absence of all these "insiders" speculating and her website updating, would "a song was leaked for 5 minutes and then abruptly taken down" be notable? No, of course not. Just because Lorde was teasing new music doesn't mean that we can now go "yep, Solar Power is coming, keep the article". There's no harm done if we just wait until she actually releases it. --LivelyRatification (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The song in question is currently being premiered on Triple J as I type this. Do with that information what you will. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_June_8&oldid=1029082355"