Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 24	May 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Obelisk (magazine) edit

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Despite many references, I cannot find non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Many references are to the magazine's website itself or to Facebook posts. May be promotional in nature. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is worth noting that taking out all the facebook.com references dropped the number of sources from 89 to 69. The page seems to have a lot of trivial information. For example:

"The header featured a photograph of an orange-colored clouded sky with a sun setting behind the roof of a house and a moon crescent above it.[45] The logo was designed using the Ariosto font in orange color; the font (in the same orange color) has continued to be used for most of the Koczan-designed graphics on the website to this day. The header also featured the subtext Patet Non Pervium, a Latin phrase roughly translating to passing is not clear;"
and "The Obelisk's header and logo received a make-over. The second logo was designed using the Latin font, italicized, in black color, with the i in Obelisk replaced by a tall, black, pointy obelisk.[49] The header featured a digitally illustrated sun eclipsed by the upper point of the obelisk from the logo, with the sun's orange and brown wavy rays spreading across the landscape, and casting black shadows from behind the logo over a grey-surfaced bottom."

This is the second of a number of AfDs involving articles by the same creator. As is true of their other articles, deletion is the best solution as repairing the article would take what amounts to a huge amount of time. --- Possibly (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, and the majority of what is left is sourced to The Obelisk! This and the other creations seem like possible UPE. Netherzone (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another bloated article where the content and citations are puffed up to give the appearance of notability. Most of the sourcing is primary, and most of that is to the Obelisk itself. Other sources are to blogs or other unreliable sources, or doesn't mention the subject. If sigcov in rs's are found I would consider changing my !vote, but at this point I can't see it passing GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Saff edit

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

A search for "Carl Saff" engineer returns very little in news, web or book results. Most results are about the musicians he records, rather than being about him. Same goes for "Carl Saff" musician. GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. - Netherzone (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV. --JBchrch talk 12:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Hymes edit

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

The only references listed here mention Hymes in passing. No references have been offered where she is the subject of the coverage. As it stands it fails WP:BIO. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ this article has been a mess, which we could fix via editing/protection, if there were sources, but as the nom says, the references are passing. They were the sum total of what I could find when I found this in the BLP PROD queue in April. In hindsight, might not have been worth rescuing but I thought there might be some sourcing eventually. So far, not the case. Changed to Keep per Reader's work.Star Mississippi 21:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hymes has voiced characters in major series for many episodes, particularly Pokemon. She's also received coverage for some of her other roles. Now if it were a live action actress I'd be a bit more hesitant, but the issue here is that voice actors typically don't receive the coverage that they would if they were in front of the camera. It's one of the reasons why I wish that there was a slight tweak to the NACTOR guidelines for voice actors. I think that there's enough notability here to warrant at least a weak keep. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to a firmer keep. I've found quite a bit of coverage for her roles in the Lupin and Snow Queen series. This, plus her role in the Pokemon series should be enough to establish notability. There's not a ton of coverage, but we make do with what we can. One note: a common trend with VAs is that often, the reviews will mention their character but not their name. This is kind of an example by what I mean when I say that they don't get the coverage that a "live action" actor would, as they'd often get named alongside the characters they portray. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple main roles in significant television shows, so meets NACTOR Furius (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Meets WP:NACTOR for multiple main roles on TV, as noted above. But it might be problematic for WP:BASIC in terms of actual coverage. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. for roles in significant TV programs. Alex-h (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five Forks, Kentucky edit

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

Rennick tells us that this is a 5-way road intersection with A store building on the right. Several homes in the vic. Searching is difficult because the Battle of Five Forks in Virginia muddies the searching waters, but what I can establish is that there was a Five Forks voting precinct formed in 1920. I did find a newspaper announcement giving the boundaries of the precinct, which include much more than our intersection, so apparently the road junction and the precinct are not quite equivalent. There is also a private road in a subdivision of Pewee Valley, Kentucky, but that is elsewhere in the state. I can find passing mentions of the precinct in Lawrence County as late as 1934, but the only significant coverage I can find is the official boundaries announcement, which just gives the boundaries and nothing really about what the precinct contained.

The intersection doesn't seem to be notable, and I'm doubting the precinct is. Hog Farm _Talk 21:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 21:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 21:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in Rennick 2016 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRennick2016 (help) which goes straight from "FITCHBURG" to "FIXER". The placename card in the Rennick Collection says what is in the nomination and notes that it's simply three river forks that go off in five directions from there. However, the GNIS isn't sourced to Rennick for this record, but is sourced to Rennick for a different record ("Five Forks Hill", Geographic Names Information System, United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior) in a different place (38°38′04″N 082°39′00″W / 38.63444°N 82.65000°W / 38.63444; -82.65000) about 80 kilometres away. And even that does not match up with Bing Maps (Maxar/TomTom) and topographic maps that put that Five Forks at 38°36′53″N 82°33′42″W / 38.614803°N 82.561721°W / 38.614803; -82.561721 instead. So this Five Forks is not Rennick's Five Forks either, and even that's dodgy because it's not the Five Forks in yet a third place. Finding sources is just impossible, not only because of the battle, but because once one gets past that there's Rennick and the fact that there are multiple undistinguished Five Forks on the map in the same county.
Summary: This only cites the GNIS as a source; and it isn't verifiable through Rennick, nor otherwise apart from multiple occurrences of the same name in different places on a topographical map. Uncle G (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Rennick, Robert M. (2016). "Place Names Beginning with the Letter F". Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection (13). Morehead State University.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Koelsch edit

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

Article does not establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. A BEFORE does not bring up significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, except for one LA Times article from 2001. In addition, the current article is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information sourced from WP:PRIMARY sources, including Instagram, Linkedin, Pinterest or search results from the Internet Archive. It looks like a significant portion of the article is WP:SYNTH. As a result, the article should in any case be WP:TNTed. JBchrch talk 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the creator plunked down a 125KB article as the first version of this. (For comparison, our article on Leonardo DaVinci is 125KB. Lowly Pablo Picasso is not as big as Koelsch, at only 104KB.) This article is so spectacularly bloated that there is no hope in determining notability by using anything in it. In fact, it poisons reasonable discussion because so much of it is either puffed up, mis-stated or just plain old lies. This is hall of fame puffery and exaggeration: 259 sources? I spent time removing Instagram and Abebooks, but there isn't enough time. I am hopeful that way is discovered soon to prevent the creator (who seems to be a seasoned promotional editor; here they are linking one of their new articles to 180 other articles) from making more articles like this one, as it is detrimental to our mission of neutrality. --- Possibly (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a clear case where WP:TNT is called for. I also agree that both the article and the efforts to add links to it into scores of other articles seem promotional. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG - almost all mentions are trivial. WP:CREATIVE standard also not met. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just when you think you've seen everything here, something like this shows up. I am in agreement that this is a solid case of WP:TNT as the article, even in it's somewhat pruned state is vastly bloated and inflated and unencyclopedic. It's impossible to determine what is real. The LA Times article is good but all of the other refs I examined (who has time to review 200+ refs?) were trivia with no bearing on notability requirements of GNG or NARTIST. Obviously a PROMO creation. Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to start somewhere, it would be removing all the citations to shannon associates, goodreads, pintrest, amazon, instagram. discogs and all the other sources that are definitely not independent reliable sources. It's so full of unusable sources that it's almost impossible to tell if there is something that does meet our needs. The only thing that stands out for me is the latimes. Vexations (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: I agree that is a good approach. But in this case, when I tried that is is extremely time-consuming, as the refs are named with numbers and the article is very densely populated with sources. To remove each amazon source, for example, one has to find the source, copy the ref number, delete the source and then search for each time it was used as a named ref. And that's just to cut one bad source out. I also discovered that if you miss one numbered source, AnomieBot will come back later and rescue the junk source! Here's AnomieBot happily adding back a bunch of Instagram and linkedin Sources. --- Possibly (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I want to make sure I do due diligence, so I have looked up every online source that is referenced in the article. It is possible that I've missed something, but the current sourcing, to the best of my knowledge, does not establish that the subject is notable. There is no significant, in-depth coverage of the subject in multiple independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article does not establish notability through sources or...Alex-h (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EMUfest edit

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

Non notable even that fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:EVENT. Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Blair edit

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

Fails WP:GNG I can find zero reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article at Variety that is specifically about Jerry Blair. I also found article where he is mentioned. That was all I could find. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EXIST and WP:NOTINHERITED. He has been mentioned in the music biz news a few times (thanks to the previous commenter for finding a couple), but only in relation to the famous people signed to his companies. There is no need for a WP article that merely announces that he exists and works somewhere. I also can find no significant coverage that is specifically about him and his career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Doomsdayer520. Not enough context for his mentions anyway, certainly not enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe Nation edit

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

Article about an "upcoming" television series, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. In actual fact, this is currently verifiable only as a pilot, which has not yet been upfronted by any Canadian television network as advancing to series -- but that violates TVSHOW, which explictly states that unaired pilots are not notable. So no prejudice against recreation later in the year if a television network actually picks it up and airs it, but the filming of an as-yet-unsold pilot is not grounds for a Wikipedia article per se, and a small serving of "pilot filmed in local area" coverage in the local media is not enough to hand it a permanent exemption from having to get upfronted first. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:TVSERIES. I wouldn't have an objection to draftifying pending whether it gets picked up. But right now I think it is WP:TOOSOON. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify --hroest 15:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Following detailed discussion, the consensus is that there is not enough independent sourcing to meet WP:NCORP due to many sources originating from company PR. RL0919 (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simplilearn edit

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

unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Non notable Awards. GermanKity (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH from third-party sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A clear keep as per the previous AFD and my personal findings. Plenty of in-depth coverage from multiple sources which is more than enough to meet CORPDEPTH. If an article is written is promotional tone, it should be copyedited rather than bringing to AFD. Pinging Hatchens, who was the reviewer of this article. Poppified ^talk 07:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Poppified, Thank you for the ping. Yes, I have reviewed this entity 5 months ago. And, at that time, I had consulted with Prolix before taking a decision. The conversation is well documented on the entity's talk page. We let it pass because of its independent sources and tagged it as a WP:STUB, so that other editors can add something to it. To contest this AfD, one has to do proper "page source analysis". I'm adding it below (in this discussion) along with my vote. But, in the end - we should always go ahead with the general consensus. - Hatchens (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the below mentione "Page Source Analysis";

Page Sources Analysis by Hatchens

Source Sites	Links	Written by Staff Writer	Reliability as per WP:RS	Significant Coverage as per WP:SIGCOV	Comments by GermanKity	Counter-comments by Hatchens	NCORP check by HighKing
Entrepreneur India	LINK	YES	YES (Only if the article is written by an editor or a staff writer)	YES	Self Published/Paid	It's written by a deputy editor. Cannot be considered as self published because there is no consensus with respect to this source.	Fails ORGIND - interview
The Economic Times	LINK	YES	YES (Only if the article is written by an editor or a staff writer and the topic is not political), Part of WP:TOI	YES	Announcement/PR	It's written by a staff writer. Cannot be considered as annoucement/PR because there is no consesus due to its inclination towards biased political reporting. However, this is not the case here.	Fails ORGIND - Company Announcement
The Economic Times	LINK	YES	YES (Only if the article is written by an editor or a staff writer and the topic is not political), Part of WP:TOI	YES	Announcement/PR	It's written by a staff writer. Cannot be considered as annoucement/PR because there is no consesus due to its inclination towards biased political reporting. However, this is not the case here.	Fails ORRGIND - Company Announcement
The Economic Times	LINK	YES	YES (Only if the article is written by an editor or a staff writer and the topic is not political), Part of WP:TOI	YES	Announcement/PR	It's written by a staff writer. Cannot be considered as annoucement/PR because there is no consesus due to its inclination towards biased political reporting. However, this is not the case here.	Fails ORGIND - Company Announcement
Forbes India	LINK	YES	YES (Only if the article is written by an editor or a staff writer)	YES	Can be consider this as good reference but i doubt on writer's profile after checking his other articles. It seems like he is paid.	It's written by a staff writer. Will stick to WP:FORBES and according to it...it's reliable.	Fails ORGIND - relies entirely on information provided by the company/staff
The Hindu Business Line	LINK	YES	YES, Part of WP:THEHINDU	YES	Announcement/PR	It's written by a staff writer. Will stick to WP:THEHINDU and according to it...it's reliable.	Fails ORGIND - Company Announcement
The Financial Express	LINK	YES (But, no name mentioned)	YES, Part of WP:INDIANEXP	YES	PR (FE Bureau)	The Financial Express is the part of Part of WP:INDIANEXP and according to it...it's reliable. However, its always quite confusing when a news bureau is compared with paid wire service such as BusinessWire/PRNewsWire, so I will stick between reliable and no consensus.	Fails ORGIND - all info provided by company/execs
The Hindu Business Line	LINK	YES	YES, Part of WP:THEHINDU	YES	PR	It's written by a staff writer. Will stick to WP:THEHINDU and according to it...it's reliable.	Fails ORGIND - Company Announcement
The Times of India	LINK	YES	YES (Only if the article is written by an editor or a staff writer and the topic is not political), WP:TOI	Passable mention	Passing Mention	It's written by a staff writer. In agreement with GermanKity w.r.t. WP:SIGCOV.	Fails CORPDEPTH - no info on company, bare mention-in-passing
SAGE Publishing	LINK	YES (Independent Author)	YES (Preview is available on Google Books)	YES	This can be considerable	In agreement with GermanKity.	Fails ORGIND - the founder provided the text for the book (says it in foreword)
The Indian Express	LINK	YES (But, no name mentioned)	YES WP:INDIANEXP	Passable Mention	Announcement/PR	It's written by a staff writer. Will stick to WP:INDIANEXP and according to it...it's reliable.	Fails ORGIND, announcement by partner. Fails CORPDEPTH, no info provided on company, bare mention-in-passing
The Hindu	LINK	YES	YES WP:THEHINDU	Passable Mention	Passing Mention	It's written by a staff writer. Will stick to WP:THEHINDU and according to it...it's reliable.	Fails ORGIND - relies on information provided by company/execs

The entity clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV/WP:CORPDEPTH (coverage in an academic book), and WP:THREE(as per WP:RSP). If anyone feels otherwise, then feel free to add to this discussion. Whatever would be the outcome, nominator and the closing admin has my support. -Hatchens (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hatchens, the references you provided are either press releases, announcements, self published or just passing mentions no WP:INDEPTH coverage. I have added one more column of my comments into you ref table. GermanKity (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GermanKity, thank you for adding your comments. But, your analysis is wrong w.r.t most of the sources (except the Times of India one, fourth from the bottom). Kindly refer to WP:RSP, tally all the sources, refer to the individual discussions (of mentioned sources) and duly match it with reference to this entity... once again. - Hatchens (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hatchens. I might have differences here on SIGCOV of a couple; but even if I ignore those what I think is not SIGCOV, there is sufficient to qualify. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the anlaysis above, it seems that almsot all the proposed references are PR or notices. Tjhe only potetially acceptable source is the Kites in a Hurricane book. and that's not. enough. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Voting seems split. More consensus required
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 18:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mainly per WP:CORPDEPTH. These sources are relatively flimsy, and even those which might appear superficially reliable smell like churnalism. Sources do not explain why this is notable, they merely list routine business "partnerships" and similar buzzwords. The mention of a Stevie Award is an especially bad sign. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an interesting discussion and raises right questions - that if there are regular announcements by companies about ongoing activities, partnership et al - do they count towards notability or not. I am also trying to establish WP:THREE here. There is consensus that the book counts towards notability; so that's one. Now let's see if we can find two more. What do we think about Forbes article [1]? It came in print and is written by staff writer. What about [2]? Written by a staff writer. Business standard is surely reliable. It has a lot of quotes from the company but it also discusses the company and activities outside what they are saying about themselves. Another one written by a staff writer [3] at Live Mint which looks alright. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of different takes and confusion above but in my opinion, much of the confusion above stems from 2 things. The first, some editors are looking at the wrong guidelines and putting far too much emphasis on WP:RS. RS is probably the lowest standard to reach. The correct guideline for an organization is WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Second, nobody has mentioned WP:ORGIND and the fact that a reference must pass both CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND - it isn't an either/or situation. Just about all of the references in that table above fails ORGIND. For example, this from entrepreneur.com recites verbatim an interview with the CEO and has no "Independent Content" - a clear failure of ORGIND. It doesn't matter in the slightest if a journalist puts their name on the article or not - that doesn't make the content "Independent Content". According to the ORGIND definition for Independent Content, the article must contain "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". Not a single one of those references meets the NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighKing, Thank you for the well explanation. GermanKity (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks HighKing! I think what you have said is very important and should always be remembered. What do you think about [4]? There is no disagreement that this company has created probably hundreds of sources with PR or other means. I am just trying to see that in midst of all those useless sources, are there any that would indicate notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything here is based on promotionalism or is a mere notice.. A promotional interview published in an otherwise reliable source is a promotional interview, and doeasn't count for notability and is not actually reliable for anything at all, it -- it just represents what the company wants to say. My analysis here is independent of Highking's, or any of the others', which I will look at only after I finish this. . I'm looking for myself, and anyone who !voted keep should actualy read the sources also.
Entrepreneur India is just such an interview. The job of a PR person is to get such interviews, The article is not written by a deputy editor. It's published under their name, but almost every substantial word in it is written by the company president,, or, morel likely, their PR person. There is complete consensus in NCORP. that such such interviews are not independent: We don't even know that there ever was an actual interview.
Economic Times 1 is a classicc notice. Its the notice of an announcement of a branch offoce, and it doesn't matter who wrote it or where it was published, but. it looks like they just reprinted a press release.
ET 2 I can't see, but its apparently a notice of financial reports..
ET 3 is an afrticle about the industry. The SL section is a reprint of their standard press release.
Forbes India is a general article about the idia, composed of promotional interview with 3 companies. That's d a little more subtle than Entrpreneur India, but thats still what it is. Not indpendent.
Hindu Business Line is a compilation of press releases, and SL gets only a small amount of coverage. Even if this compilation is regarded as is editorial, not pR, it's not substation
Financial Express. Only 1 paragraph in a geneeal story is about SL, and that's a quote from the owner.:
HBL 2 Everything based on what the company chose to tell them
Times of India This one is a quite good story by a reporter, but it covers 9 firms in one paragraph each. SL got 2 inconspicuous sentences in a logn story. Not substantial.
Sage book (Sage is a second-rate business publisher .) Kites in a Hurricane: Startups from Cradle to Fame There's a small section, 3 pages in a 273 p. book, titlred "Simplelearn: The Founders Experience" that about describes it.. Not independent.
Indian Express It's not about SL, its an announcement of a program from IIT that uses their technology. Unsubstantial announcement
The Hindu Fairly good story about the effect of IT. They use a quote from SL. along with quotes from numerous other firms. Not substantial, not independent.

The notability policy that applies here is NCORP, which makes it clear what sources are RS for companies and what sources are not. It isn't the name of the publication. It's who actually wrote the material, and what it says. There is no completely reliable source, in India, the US, or anywhere else. The reliability depends on the subject, and varies from story to story. Most business publications are a mix of real news, analysis, and promotionalism . A good publication has relatively little that's just promotionalism , but it's never or almost never the case that it has none at all. If they did, the PR profession would be out of business. What this analaysis says in general about the publications, is that the Times of India and The Hindu (but not necessarily their business section) sometime publish real journalism--That's what we thought about them before--but the items in question here , though independent, are not substantial coverage.

But what's at stake is not WP:N--variations in what we cover are relatively insignificant. It's one of our fundamental policies, WP:V. The very purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide nPOV verifiable information. What a company says about itself is not reliable as a source for anything that's going to be NPOV. It can only be used to give the opinion of the owners about their firm, and may or may not have any relation to reality. It does not matter where it's printed. Even if it's printed in a good RS , it still just shows what the owners want to say about themselves. If we compromise on this, we lose our purpose and are no better than google. Google prints what the companies say also. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadicghumakkad, this is the best explanation one can ask for. As a reviewer of this article, I'm pretty much convinced with DGG and others. Besides that, the reliability of Livemint is yet to be ascertained. Also, I'm convinced with HighKing assessment -> we're "looking at the wrong guidelines and putting far too much emphasis on WP:RS." We've to look beyond it. -Hatchens (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Hatchens ! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Hunt edit

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

The current article is based entirely on an interview (a primary source, so not enough to meet GNG) and an unclear citation to what appears to be a page written by the subject herself. I could not find anything further about this person online, except for social media profiles, book sales websites and the like. Her promotion of alternative medicine (saying she couldn't be cured by "allopathic medicine") and shamanism doesn't even appear to have attracted sufficient attention to be criticised. Hence, a total failure of WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did my due diligence and the subject fails WP:GNG, even when searching "shaman". Missvain (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark York edit

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, as it doesn't meet any of the three points. WP:VERIFIABILITY is also of doubt as most of the citations have taken all their information (other than his acting roles) directly from his obituary without analysing this information, and so they are not valid WP:SECONDARY sources, and are instead WP:PRIMARY. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen articles in worse shape and are still kept. This article is well sourced and I've checked the sources and they line up with the info given (except his filmography, while some made references to them they did not specify the episode he appeared in). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TDKR Chicago 101 I accept that the sources back up everything that's said in the article, the problem is the sources entirely depend on primary sources for his personal life. Do you have any comments as to his notability? Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing seems adequate to me. He also has a full-article obit in the New York Times. Articles have survived AFD with much less. Are any specific claims being contested? The man had a memorable role in a major sitcom, and many people are curious about the man’s life, so I hope this can be resolved soon. Zagalejo (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple sources I found in NewsBank -- one of which even predates The Office. Zagalejo (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zagalejo The main concern is notability. For the closest point in WP:NACTOR that applies, he needs to have "significant roles" (plural), while even his role in The Office is up for debate as for significance. The policy exists to stop Wikipedia:PSEUDO biographies which the article currently is, where his single role in The Office is the primary focus. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is reasonably balanced as it is, and I've seen additional "non-Office" facts that haven't been included yet. I also think the page easily satisfies the General notability guideline, which would trump the actor guideline. (But even the actor guideline seems to allow for some wiggle room. Depending on how generous you are, one can argue that he satisfies points 2 and 3. I certainly remembered him from his role on The Office, and there are plenty of Office fans out there who remember his scenes very well. He did make an impact in his supporting role.) Zagalejo (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the WP:GNG route, the details about his personal life would need to be secondary sources, while all the sources make it clear they're getting the information straight from his personal site and his obituary, and so they are still primary sources for that information. I saw even the NYT obituary does this. If there are sources repeating the same information before his death I will consider this satisfied, and I'll withdraw this nomination. Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fairly large amount of information from newspaper databases like NewsBank. I've added a few of those articles as sources. He was being written about, in some detail, long before his death. Zagalejo (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator While his personal life is still almost entirely based on the primary sources I've stated above, with the addition of the newspapers in mind (specifically, the expansion of his advocacy work, so that his article is not all about The Office), I've decided it's best to give the benefit of the doubt that it meets WP:GNG rather than support the deletion of what is now, in my eyes, a good article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China exclusion policy of NASA edit

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

The topic itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The current citations in the article about the policy itself are two primary source references (one being an appropriations act passed by congress, one being letter written by a U.S. House of Reps member). Another source is a 2010 AFP piece about how a NASA administrator was going to visit China that occurred prior to the passage of the appropriations rider that the article appears to be about. Other sources present don't appear to describe the policy in detail.

I've tried to find in-depth sources on the policy/appropriations rider itself, but I admit that I cannot find significant coverage. The article appears to have additional problems (the title doesn't appear to meet WP:COMMONNAME and doesn't appear to meet WP:CRITERIA owing to its lack of precision). The problems present (both regarding notability and other items) motivate me to nominate this article for deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination and support Keep There is significant coverage of the article's topic as the "Wolf Amendment". Admittedly I did not encounter or search that term prior to the nomination, though I did make an effort to search for the China Exclusion Policy of NASA and other similar terms. It might be wise to look towards a movement of the article title towards what appears to be its WP:COMMONNAME, but it's clear that there's significant coverage, as established by Volteer1 and BrxBrx. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although perhaps a single sentence or two could be salvaged and placed in NASA and / or China–United States relations. Overall this doesn't seem to have enough cohesive coverage as a single unified topic to justify an article. As it is this article has a WP:SYNTHy feel to it - taking a bunch of disconnected stories, tying them around public law 113-6 (which has almost no direct coverage), and giving it an intensely overbearing name to make it sound far more significant than it is. But public Law 113-6 has almost no news coverage and its only impact seems to have been a single incident, which itself received minimal coverage and was quickly resolved. --Aquillion (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably just be because you're searching for the wrong thing, I don't think anyone calls it that. See below, try "Wolf amendment" for instance. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Merge~~ with Space policy of the United States, as I agree with Aquillion that there's some useful information. The policy still exists and it's still getting the occasional news piece (e.g. spacenews.com in February), and as the article still gets a lot of interest there's no point in deleting it entirely. The article still needs a lot of truncation and work, however. Keep certainly isn't suitable as the article also concerns the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and at least needs a rename. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the new name so I've changed from merge to keep. As I said above there's useful information and it's still relevant and important, so delete is not applicable in my view. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What if the page title is changed to reflect what the article is about? Maybe it could be titled NASA China policy, NASA ban on Chinese engagement, or U.S. ban on NASA engagement with China? The article is pretty significant concerning U.S.–China relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching for "Wolf Amendment" in combination with "NASA" seems to get me a few hits. No comment if this is SIGCOV, but thought worth mentioning in case it helps. CMD (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rename to "China-United States space relations" or merge to China–United States relations, this is a notable topic, but if it's notable enough to split it off from the parent relations article is more debatable. Would likely lean more towards merging as splitting it seems uncommon at least for this kind of topic. Jumpytoo Talk 03:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't think a good faith effort was ever made WP:BEFORE it was nominated. As well as The Guardian and Scientific American sources in the article: [5][6], about 30 seconds on google gives me ARS Technica: [7], Politico: [8], Time: [9], The Telegraph: [10], Financial Times: [11], etc. Not opposed to a rename, and this article could very clearly do with some work, but we really do have to stop with these silly AfD nominations of clearly notable subjects. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has extensive significant coverage of the topic itself - not merely as a part of NASA policy broadly interpreted. As User:Volteer1 points out, trivial effort on a wp:BEFORE search returns extensive reliable and in-depth coverage from sources as varied as magazines to polisci and scientific research journals on this topic - and I found some more [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. I am therefore perplexed as to why @Mikehawk10: believes that this does not count as significant coverage - could you please elaborate why this coverage is not significant? BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mikehawk10:, why did you change the name of the article before this AfD was closed? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to withdraw the AfD, and I guess I was unable to do so. I'm admittedly not super experienced in the topic area of deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have waited for an admin to close the discussion. I think you should get in touch with one and they can close this AfD since you've withdrawn your nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Joanna Newsom discography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yarn and Glue edit

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

Album does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. A BEFORE shows no significant coverage. I am not proposing a merger with Joanna Newsom or Joanna Newsom discography because all the relevant, properly sourced information present in this article is already included there. JBchrch talk 16:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 16:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 16:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, surprisingly.. she is a notable artist but notability is not inherited and I do not see any sourcing out there. Obviously the sources now do not cut it. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joanna Newsom discography. Same rationale as the above posts. versacespace leave a message! 21:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her discography. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Over multiple relists, there appears to be enduring good-faith disagreement as to exactly whether this article passes the bar of the general notability guideline. It's clearly something of an edge case, with a small number of sources that seem to just about fit the letter of the guideline. In the absence of any history of controversial editing or questionable claims being included to concern us regarding WP:BLP policy, i'm comfortable with defaulting to keep in the absence of a consensus. ~ mazca ^talk 15:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Zafari edit

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Only name mentains, no indepth coverage. Also while during wp:before I realised he has an inside connection with Barron. Sonofstar (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The previous deletion nomination was withdrawn for good reason. "Fail of WP:GNG" is a curious rationale, given the sources present in the article at the time of nomination. They are:

"Profiles: Richard Jones, Reza Zafari". Los Angeles Business Journal. June 25, 2007. Retrieved 8 May 2021.
Garmhausen, Steve (January 22, 2021). "Reza Zafari: Small Caps and Aggressive Goals". Barron's. Retrieved 8 May 2021.
Miller, Matt (April 19, 2019). "Jones Zafari Group: The 'Virtual Family Office' Comes of Age". Barron's. Retrieved 8 May 2021.
Cohen, Jordan (24 September 2010). "Pomona Welcomes 3 New Members to the Board of Trustees". The Student Life. Retrieved 8 May 2021.

The Student Life is reliable per WP:RSSM but a little borderline for notability purposes, but the others certainly count. I'd like to know what connection you see, but Barron's was founded as a sister publication to The Wall Street Journal, so I'm skeptical there would be an issue with using that unless they had a disclaimer on the article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Profile links are not contribution much, barron is not much reliable and he has connects, Rest The Student Life is notable source but this is not indepth about Reza Zafari, hardly 2-3 lines.Sonofstar (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonofstar, it's difficult to fully understand what you are saying; please communicate clearly. You seem to have ignored my main question: what is this "inside connection" to Barron's that you assert? I did a search and was unable to find anything apart from its coverage of him. As for its reliability, the two references I was able to find on RSN were both instances in which Barron's was being used as a clearly reliable foil to another more questionable source: Barron's (newspaper) is a very reputable US newspaper published in tabloid format here and while Rolling Stone is a useful source, it does not carry the same weight as Barrons on the topic here. My case for notability does not rely on The Student Life to meet the two-source GNG minimum, as the other profiles are much more in-depth; I included it mainly since it helps fill in details on his early life. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet WP:GNG... can't find any convergence with Barron's. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I failed to find any significant coverage aside from him being in Barron's or writing for Barron's. To me, being repeatedly covered in the same publication or writing for the publication - or getting a minor passing mention - in the same publication does not qualify under WP:GNG. Present me sourcing from multiple reliable secondary sources - and two is not enough - and I'm all ears. Missvain (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Missvain, please see the first source in my !vote, which is to the Los Angeles Business Journal, which is not Barron's and which was judged generally reliable the last time it came up at RSN that I could find. Regarding writing for Barron's, I have not found any instance of that; please provide a link if you have so that we can review. Regarding your last sentence, GNG requires two or more qualifying sources, and that's what I have firmly established here; you are free to IAR ignore that standard or to seek out additional sources if you wish. If we're going the IAR route, the fact that Barron's has covered him multiple times rather than just once probably counts for something. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are right, he hasn't written for Barron's he just has a profile on it (like a Bloomberg Business profile). Frankly, I'm just not convinced he is independently notable to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Here is my examination of the sourcing I have found:

"Reza Zafari: Small Caps and Aggressive Goals". Barron's. 22 January 2021. Retrieved 22 May 2021. - Counts towards GNG
"Jones Zafari Group: The 'Virtual Family Office' Comes of Age". Barron's. 19 April 2019. Retrieved 22 May 2021. - This is about the business he co-owns. It's not about him specifically. Could count towards WP:BASIC.

Everything else is a passing mention or promotional-type profiles, including your LA Business Journal profile. I am not counting a college newspaper announcement/article about board members, which again, mentions the subject in passing, as counting towards a general notability. I stand by my vote. Delete. The subject does not meet general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you're not persuaded that the Los Angeles Business Journal is SIGCOV? It's a full reported article about him that gives biographical details like his age/education/previous positions and quotes him five times. The fact it covers his partner as well doesn't change that—GNG specifies that coverage does not need to be the main topic of the source material. And if you're saying it doesn't seem reliable, that goes against the RSN discussion, but you're not bound by it so that's something you can do. But there's no shame in changing your !vote after reviewing information you previously missed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I am not convinced. Run of the mill business profiles are not going to convince me that the subject meets WP:GNG. Perhaps other editors will feel otherwise and !vote accordingly. Missvain (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Sdkb, it makes better sense to keep this article as it has references from reliable newspapers and media. I would like to add another one from Barrons 2019 Top Advisor Rankings by State Mommmyy (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the exact issue, source only from Barrons. Editors are not able to find other journals. Personal Profile link like https://www.barrons.com/advisor/directory/reza-zafari this signals only one thing, internal connection. Please share sources from multiple RS. Sonofstar (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is befuddling that you continue to insist that I have provided no sources apart from Barron's when I did precisely that above. If you (or MrsSnoozyTurtle below) feel that the Los Angeles Business Journal profile (which, again, gives biographical details like his age/education/previous positions and quotes him five times) somehow doesn't qualify as SIGCOV, make an argument as to why. Otherwise, the closer is unlikely to give your !votes much or any weight.

You are mistaken that him appearing in the Barron's directory implies any sort of "internal connection". As Missvain already noted above, it is akin to a Bloomberg Business profile; Barron's has them for everyone who appears in their rankings as Zafari does. If that changes your perspective, you are free to change your !vote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks in-depth coverage aside from Barrons. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by Sdkb, which certainly seem to meet GNG to me.DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only substantive content in the article is his job (private wealth advisor and managing director), where he has lived and now lives, and the college where he studied. There is nothing at all in the article regarding why Zafari stands out more than a person with a reasonably high-ranking job. It may well be that sources such as Barrons cover Zafari, but secondary sourcing provides a presumption of notability. For there to be real notabiity, in the way that "notability" is used in everyday language, there needs to be some assertion in the article as to why he is significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have by no means mined the sources for all they have to offer; I haven't even written the "career" section of the page yet. But an article being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, and if there were nothing notable about Zafari he wouldn't be receiving GNG-qualifying coverage. It's not our role to second guess which topics that journalists write about are actually important or not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:42, 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 (typo). Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Porngraphy in Sri Lanka edit

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

Title is a typo. WP:CONTENTFORK, almost verbatim copy/paste from Pornography in Asia#Sri Lanka, where Pornography in Sri Lanka is redirected to. Chanaka L (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Chanaka L (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Chanaka L (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. I deproded this after it was proposed for deletion for not having any sources. However, given the additional context presented by the nominator, there really is no need for this article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pornography_in_Asia#Sri_Lanka. Missvain (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Snowball closure; elected representative of a parliament, overwhelming community consensus per NPOL. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Natarajan (politician) edit

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. Google search for "T. Natarajan (politician)" shows only 15 results, all Wikipedia and its mirrors. Not notable. Clog Wolf _Howl 15:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clog Wolf _Howl 15:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Clog Wolf _Howl 15:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The subject is not a local official but a Member of the Legislative Assembly (India). The subject is a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and hence passes WP:POLITICIAN. SUN EYE 1 15:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per Sun Eye 1. He is a member of a state legislative assembly, not some town council etc - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if our SNGs are to be followed. In what universe does being elected to a state legislature in a country with a billion plus population and a state with a population of 70 million make one a local official? —SpacemanSpiff 17:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shojon edit

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

Possible conflict of interest editing of a non notable “entrepreneur” and singer. Who hasn’t won any notable awards that WP:ANYBIO is met nor does he satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails WP:SINGER. Nothing found to support keeping it. Kolma8 (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . NO evidence of Notability , not enough independent RS to pass WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekhane Aakash Neel Season 2 edit

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

~~Lack of reference DasSoumik (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE per this Run n Fly (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DasSoumik, in this context "Lack of reference" is not a policy-based reason for why this article should be deleted. Can you please update this listing with a policy-based rationale? Please see this for reference. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added missing references per MOS:TVREFS and now passes WP:TVSERIES. Run n Fly (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seems to have sufficient references to indicate notability. As a naming convention, should 'Season' be in this article title, or no? matt91486 (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffa Road (disambiguation) edit

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page, with no links to it. The main Jaffa Road article includes a link to the band and the bombings. cagliost (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Serves no purpose. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A disambiguation page is not required here (WP:2DABS). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blois Football 41. ✗plicit 13:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Municipal des Allées Jean Leroi edit

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

Fails WP:GNG and notability for stadiums (Blois Football 41 has never been professional and neither was its ancestor AAJ Blois). Decent option is to redirect to Blois Football 41 as a possible search term. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blois Football 41; possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 16:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blois Football 41 per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Santosh L (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Add information from here to Blois Football 41. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, and previous recent AFDs for stadia of amateur French teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Bbb23 deleted page under G3 (Blatant hoax) (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gamao edit

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

this is so beyond believable that it is almost a hoax. A bodyguard for a band is highly unlikely to be notable on their own and this is a great example of why. Creatively, he doesn't meet and N criteria and I can't find any mentions in the sources listed even looking through newspaper archives. YODADICAE👽 13:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dendi Sembiring edit

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

No apparent claim to notability here. All of his alleged appearances were for clubs that were playing in the 2nd or 3rd tier or below at the time, so WP:NFOOTBALL is not met. Even his Transfermarkt profile only states his Liga 2 appearances. An Indonesian search as well as Google searches come back with nothing better than a few squad list mentions, such as these in Kumparan and Tribun News, which are absolutely not enough for WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, didn't play in FPL league.--Mvqr (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T10 Sports edit

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Article needs more independent and reliable sources that provides clear evidence of notability. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 10:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass GNG at a cursory glance.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not 100% on the guidelines for a clothing company, but if it's GNG it seems to fail as there is no real coverage of the company apart from official sites or companies/teams they supply too. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news shows lot's of news on this one. I think the article and citations just need to be improved. Webmaster862 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Webmaster862, every thing you search on Google news shows much news at a soft look. But you must understand through which news, the subject has received significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Google News just provide news of a topic you search if there is at least one word mentioned in a site. Most of the news of Google News about T10 Sports are just match predictions or live streaming etc, so not enough to pass WP:GNG. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Webmaster862, I understand that you are experienced than me in terms of date joined. But having only 196 main space edits, I don't think that you have well understanding of these complicated Wikipedia policies about notability. So, you should first of all do some research and go through the project pages explaining the guidelines. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of digging. while you are right that some of these may not be related or are just a mention, these articles have good in-depth coverage aninews.in, khaleejtimes.com, InsideSport. I will stick to my vote. Webmaster862 (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my research I discovered that they run "Abu Dhabi T10" which is a very popular cricket tournament. I have gone ahead and added a section about this and expanded the article with new sources. You should do a fresh review and search Google for "Abu Dhabi T10." There are dozens of in-depth articles about it such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster862 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Webmaster862, take a read of WP:NCORP and especially the WP:ORGIND section - all three of those links rely entirely on Announcements from the company, fails ORGIND, no Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is limited to PR pieces (press releases or their rewrites) or mentions in passing. Fails NORG/GNG IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per HighKing. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only routine coverage found, nothing satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jasbir Singh (author) edit

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

Unreliable sources. (Hindustan Times says "Brand Post", other sources are also unreliable)

Note: The article was accepted by the sock User: Frayae using AfC Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 10:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 10:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 10:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and the references from HIndustan Times[17] is a brand post. Owlf (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Buenos Aires: The Dangerous Tour edit

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

I know this was just closed at AfD as "merge", but, well, there is absolutely nothing here to merge, and it isn't worthy of a redirect, as this is completely unsourced, and there is not a single reliable source for this either[18]. Please reconsider this (I haven't taken it to WP:DRV, as the previous AfD was closed correctly based on the votes, it's just that the result shouldn't happen per our policies).

@Meatsgains, Pahiy, DagosNavy, Suonii180, and Premeditated Chaos: (all participants in the previous AfD) Fram (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was just looking up this users contributions for the same reason, this is fancruft JW 1961^Talk 11:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.— TheWikiholic (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Doll edit

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

Fail WP:GNG. The article is mostly about the performer's participation in RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12).--Underpaid Intern (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject was getting coverage even before their stint on RPDR, including their modeling. All before RPDR, they had a 10-page spread in Volition Magazine here, coverage in Out here, a cover of Feroce Magazine here, and coverage in Dark Beauty Magazine. During and post-RPDR, they were covered by Vogue Paris, Watcha Packin' , and Out (again), all three of which are currently used on the page. Given the subject's continued coverage, I think it would make the most sense to keep. --Kbabej (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG and Kbabej. Also, I've asked the nominator to slow down on the RPDR contestant article deletion noms. There are already 5 to review. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As there is already a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race#Nicky_Doll_AfD_nomination about this, I don't understand how your comment is relevant to this nomination. I have already asked you to point me to guidelines about the number of AfD that one can nominate, but as of now you still haven't. I don't think this comment adds any value to this nomination or demonstrates that I am not following guidelines. --Underpaid Intern (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Underpaid Intern, Well, you're not exactly following the process correctly by nominating this article for being "mainly about the performer's participation in RuPaul's Drag Race". You're basing your argument on the current article's text, not all available coverage of the subject. No one would dispute these articles need to be expanded, but just because they are stubs does not mean the topics are not notable. WP:BEFORE. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, AfD discussions serve for this purpose. I am not claiming that all my nominations are correct. You have been telling me to "slow down" with the nominations and I have asked you, several times, to point me to any guideline that specifies the appropriate number of nominations one can do. I don't think the guideline you citing now is relevant to our discussion (while it may be valid for this nomination). --Underpaid Intern (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Underpaid Intern, We're going around in circles. I'll let others take over from here. Please do not waste editor time by nominating articles for deletion if you've not completed thorough sourcing reviews. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wanted to address part of the nominator's nomination, which states (in part) "The article is mostly about the performer's participation in RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12)". A friendly reminder that notability is based on available sourcing, not the sourcing from the article, as shown by WP:NEXIST. --Kbabej (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep per notability from RS mentioned above. Rab V (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piyawat Intarapim edit

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

According to Soccerway, Tribuna and Besoccer, he has not played higher than the 2nd tier of Thai football so he does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Looking at the alleged appearances, they were all for teams that were playing in the 2nd and 3rd tiers at the time, with the exception of Khon Kaen F.C., who played in the TPL in 2011 but there is no clear evidence that Intarapim made an appearance; his appearances (if they are even correct) could well have come from the many seasons when they were in the lower semi-pro tiers.

A search of Thai sources returns nothing better than a few match report squad lists and a very brief transfer announcement, which contains nothing that we can build a biography from. No evidence of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTY JW 1961^Talk 19:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think he might have played in the Thai League. This was created in 2011, when they were in it. User:Kanzaki Jiro, as the creator, what do you think? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search for his Thai name during 2011 period [19] found that he played in numerous games in the 1st tier football. For example: Khonkaen vs Chonburi on 27 November 2011 [20], Khonkaen vs Buriram on 2 April 2011 [21], Khonkaen vs Sisaket on 10 April 2011 [22] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Thai. Is it just those 3 games or is it more than that? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the NFOOTBALL portion of my nomination statement due to this evidence. I'll leave the GNG part of it there as GNG still looks like a fail at this moment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Las Vegas plane crash edit

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Military aircraft crashes are very common and usually not notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete common occurrence, nothing to show this is in any way notable. Mztourist (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominator summed it up perfectly, this isn't a notable happening at all. versacespace leave a message! 12:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to indicate this is a specifically significant crash. 66.6% of the present sources are from Twitter (though I assume more routine coverage could be dug up, that does not change my vote.) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per above.Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete military aircraft accidents are rarely of note even if flown and owned by a government contractor. Nothing in the article indicates anything noteworthy for a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G. Balasubramanian edit

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed by Necrothesp who pointed to WP:NACADEMIC #6 but NACADEMIC talks about " a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society". Here, however, the post is vice-chancellor, with by the very virtue of vice is at best "second highest", and neither does Tamil University (est. 1981) looks like a "major academic institution". WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an issue, but coverage in Dinamani (which I Google Translated) looks very poor. [23] reads like a press release about him being appointed, ditto for [24], [25] this mentions him in passing in one sentence, as does the other Tamil-lang ref. Gscholar suggests his research has no international impact (he should not be confused with Gopalakrishnan Balasubramanian who is much more widely cited). As such, I stand by my initial assessment - subject fails NPROF and NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think maybe you should have read our article on vice-chancellors before nominating and not made assumptions based on the title! The VC in Commonwealth universities is the professional head of the university and does indeed hold the "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post". The chancellor is merely a figurehead, usually a well-known figure from public life, and has no responsibility for administration of the institution. Clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC #6, as I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, I don't think NA#6 was intended for such hydras, how many heads are notable then? You also ignore the issue of whether this institution is "major". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's very simple. The VC is the head of the university and the person very clearly covered by WP:NACADEMIC #6 at Commonwealth universities. The chancellor is not in any way the head and would not be notable per this criterion (although they are usually appointed because they are already notable public figures); their main function is to dress up in elaborate robes and present the degrees at degree ceremonies. They have no administrative responsibilities whatsoever. You seem fixated on the word "vice", which in this instance means absolutely nothing in practical terms. It's merely a traditional title. The deputy head of the university is called the deputy vice-chancellor or pro-vice-chancellor. The article is quite clear on this and anyone connected with a Commonwealth university would be fully aware of the VC's role. As to "major", this is entirely subjective of course, but I think a full-blown university in India (as opposed to the multitudinous colleges) qualifies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would also point out that the heads of some Commonwealth universities have started calling themselves "Vice-Chancellor and President" (not vice-president, you will note), adding the usual American title in an obvious attempt to clarify the same mistake that you have made that they are not the actual head of the university. The head of a Scottish university has long been known as the "Principal and Vice-Chancellor". -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      All well and good, and I'll concede that vice-chancellor qualifies for NA#6. But I am still not convinced the institution is "major" - that's a term I'd reserve for schools in the top 1000 in rankings plus ones with historical significance. His institution does not qualify. Given that he otherwise fails SIGCOV/NBIO, this is an issue worth discussing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NACADEMIC #6 as the vice-chancellor of a public (albeit small) university as pointed out by Necrothesp. The nominator seems to have misunderstood the role of a university vice-chancellor. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:NACADEMIC #6 includes language to specifically cover the case of vice-chancellors: "Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) ..." MoneciousTriffid (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NACADEMIC #6. --hroest 00:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NACADEMIC#6. Powerful Karma (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per #6 of WP:NACADEMIC. Vice-chancellor is the highest administrative post of public universities in India. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So many keep !votes here, but can anyone figure out his first name? Dr. Universe (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- His given name is Balasubramanian. There is no surname. This is a standard format of names from some parts of India: Father's initial, followed by full given name. So unless he westernized it (as some Indians have done) by pretending that one part of the name is a surname when really it isn't, "G. Balasubramanian" is the correct and full form of his name. You could ask for the father's full name, which would be a different initial followed by something beginning with G., but that's as unnecessary here as asking for mother's maiden name would be in a western-named biography. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep occupies highest possible post within a university in the Commonwealth system. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is discussion as to whether Nagoor should be a separate article on a village, a disambiguation page, or a redirect. That discussion may continue on the talkpage and the result there will not require admin action. There is clearly consensus to keep something in some form. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagoor edit

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

This unreferenced stub is a recent blank-and-redirect of a two-entry disambiguation page. The current version (about a village) fails notability. The previous version (links to Nagore and Negur) fails MOS:DAB because neither of those target articles mention this alternative spelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognised place. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than 3,000 people live here. Of course it is notable.--Hippeus (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Per above and WP:GEOLAND. Census numbers are often falsified in Wikipedia articles (for some reason) but the town is present on maps, so it verifiably exists. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, a DAB may be more appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a tricky one. Cannot find "Nagoor", "Nagore," or "Nagur" in Udupi District Census Book. Census search returned 5 villages named "Nagoor" located in other parts of India—Nagoor (K), Nagoor (B), Nagoor, Nagooor (Muzafar) and Nagoor (RF); but not this village in Udupi district. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the same, I couldn't verify the demographics section in the 2011 census, but you can find the village on google maps. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But if this village is not legally recognised, WP:GEOLAND does not apply. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the census map, Nagoor seems to be included in the count for Kirimanjeshwar, which it also shares a post office code with. Regarding legal recognition, there is a bank registered there [26] and you can get a bus there [27]. There is also some evidence that people live there [28][29]. But all considered I suspect that Nagoor, Udupi is actually a subdivision of Kirimanjeshwar and therefore should be redirected there. Or better still, this article should be converted to a disambiguation page for this location and the other instances of this village name. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think redirecting is appropriate considering there are other places that are presumably notable. But yeah, DAB page is a good idea. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GEOLAND. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore dab per the above discussion. The current text is about a village that's apparently not (yet?) legally recognised, but it's certainly mention-worthy in the article about the larger unit. Nagoor is also an alternative spelling for Nagore, as well as the name of a few villages. – Uanfala (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a dab will save the editors' past work. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To you with love edit

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

Non notable novel Urartuvanking (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and contains copyvio text to boot. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this non-notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superseuper (talk • contribs) 01:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
g12 as a blatant copyvio of ]https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/54866908-to-you-with-love] dudhhr_Contribs 01:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Terell edit

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

Fails WP:GNG no indepth coverage Urartuvanking (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Urartuvanking (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has indepth coverage in major music websites [30] [31][32][33][34], [35], [36][37] and more which passes GNG. Thrueli (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thrueli: thehypemagazine.com literally has a page stating the prices for buying articles. All the sources you mention are paid garbage.--- Possibly (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hype Magazine is a well known music website and there are many other indepth sources too which can counted for notability. Thrueli (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, except thehypemagazine.com is not not the site for [[Hype (magazine)|The Hype Magazine]], which you skillfully piped.--- Possibly (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing here is very poor. "Droid Journal," for example, has the text "Marketing1on1 | Internet Marketing | SEO" at the bottom of the page." looking at another that Thrueli cites, freshheadline.com, I got caught in en endless loop of pages called "Top 50 Affordable Online Trade Schools". Freshheadline.com also cites no physical address on their cite. In short: paid junk. --- Possibly (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right that some of the sources are not much good but others like [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] etc seems fine and coverage the subject indepth. Thrueli (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Rocstar Music Group-RMG seeks to help indie artists grow a successful music brand in a different way!" The sources are all breathlessly paid for! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but blackhat SEO, vanity spam. YODADICAE👽 15:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's great at self-promotion, but these sources are not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable source to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Stansson edit

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

Self-promotional page has been deleted before because it fails WP:CREATIVE and appears to have been created/maintained by its subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.200.238 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been deleted multiple times because of notability concerns and because it appears to be self-promotional, but continues to be recreated. In addition, almost the entire article is based on just one of the four listed sources — a Q&A with the article's subject that appeared on a now-defunct blog. That anonymously produced "interview" doesn't seem to meet the standards of a reliable source, and I have concerns (although I do not have the ability to prove it) that the article's subject has been involved in the editing and resurrections of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.200.238 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Rationale copypasted from WP:AFT and from Talk:Gunnar Stansson. Sam Sailor 07:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:ENTERTAINER, verifiability is nonexistant and relies entirely on primary sources, and contains promotional and opinionated text. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; obviously falls short of notability at present, with no prejudice to the future. With my admin hat on, I declined this as G11—it's not blatant in its promotion—but can clearly endorse its deletion here at AfD. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 00:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Feel free to (1) Propose merges on the appropriate talk page; (2) Improve the article; and/or (3) Speedy renominate for deletion. Missvain (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popponesset Spit (neé Popponesset Peninsula) edit

Not sure what a "spit of land" is, but this fails WP:V and contains WP:OR. Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Popponesset, Massachusetts. It's a Spit (landform) here, not sure it needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 06:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But it isn't there. The landform described in the article, separating the bay from the sound, is labelled Little Thatch Island and Thatch Island on the very map that you just pointed to. Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge entirely unsourced - OR. Fails WP:GEOLAND. A spit of land, indeed. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Popponesset, Massachusetts. A type of peninsula, in this case showing a poor WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 09:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Banner:Your comment is a poor AfD response. You vote for merge without giving a reason and then you accuse me for doing a "poor WP:BEFORE". No one (yourself included) has provided a source mentioning a "Popponesset Peninsula". So either provide a source or strike your comment.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you had taken a few minutes to look up what a "spit of land" was, you had your answer. Now you give the impression that you AfD'ed it because you did not know what the article was talking about. The Banner talk 16:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You do not have a leg to stand on yourself, note. Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The people blithely opining merger clearly haven't looked for sources either, otherwise they would know that this landform is called Popponesset Spit (not Peninsula) and its changes in shape have been studied going back to 1787 as it comes and goes over the years. Find the 1988 U.S. Department of the Interior report on CBRS UNIT C17 and you will find a lot of information on the geology and history of this landform, specifically, with maps. Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact "Popponesset Peninsula" does not exist means this article should be deleted regardless (in other words it fails WP:V, my original argument). Perhaps someone can make the argument that there is enough sourcing for Popponesset Spit, but that is a separate article.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is this article (which even describes some of the hurricane problems, which sources, there being more than one, go into in more detail) simply renamed to the right title with the ordinary editors' article move tool. Please get a grasp of what requires the administrator deletion tool and what does not. Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If an ordinary editor just moves this as you suggest, it creates a redirect that should be deleted because it promotes the use of a name that doesn't exist. This clearly is not now nor ever has been a peninsula.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now you're reaching. That's not a reason to delete an article, and AFD isn't how we discuss redirects left behind after a page move. Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really, I read the article again and it actually does not refer to Popponesset Spit either. This article is actually some type of WP:SYNTH. The spit is basically a sandbar, no body lives there. Yet the article says Much of the peninsula is occupied by Popponesset Beach and the remainder is largely residential.. So the author combined the spit with something else to create the term "Popponesset Peninsula".--Rusf10 (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The author got something wrong, that is fixable with ordinary editing tools. We are not constrained to not correct it, and what you've just done is quite foolish. Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Ignoring all the petty argument, there are no sources for this name. None. Looking at both the topos and the nautical charts, for once they are in complete agreement: the town of Popponesset is at the southern end of Popponesset Bay, which is almost closed off from the sound by a long spit called, in every source, Popponesset Beach, when it is labelled at all. Adjacent to the town is Popponesset Island from which it is separated by Popponesset Creek, and at the far end of the beach (really a barrier island) is another small island called Thatch Island. Searching for Popponesset Peninsula produces no book hits and nothing but clickbait for regular web searching. And there's nothing surprising about that: Kamchatka is a peninsula, the Peloponnese is a peninsula, but this is basically a sand bar that happens to stick out of the water. Mangoe (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Then try looking for the right name. I have told you what it is. It adds nothing at this point to say that looking for the wrong name yields no sources. The right name does, several of them, and I've even pointed to one already. There's a 48-page U.S. Army Corps of Engineers paper from 1993 that gives Popponesset Spit in the second sentence of its abstract. It really is dead easy to turn up stuff with the right name. Try it. It's even easy to turn up that name starting from "Little Thatch Island" on Reywas92's map. I simply combined it with "Popponesset" and the name "Popponessett Spit" came out as the very first Google Books search result. It took about a minute. It's that easy. Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This spit is a great place to find seaglass in my experience, but it's not anywhere near notable enough for an article. Because the current title of the article is a neologism, there is no need for a redirect from this title. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:HEY Article has been recast and renamed.Djflem (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Popponesset Spit and keep Popponesset Peninsula as possible search term since the spit is a peninsula.Djflem (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- First, moving an article during an AfD is against the rules. Second, Popponesset Peninsula is unacceptable even as a search term, there is no such thing, all references to that name must be deleted.Rusf10 (talk)
  - Talk:Popponesset Spit. See Wikipedia:BEFORE (clearly inadequate) C1: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Djflem (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Citing rules? Learn them: Wikipedia:EDITATAFD READ: Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator. (Would have been happy to do so, but like fly on shit, was reverted 2x). Also see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (TAKE IT to TALK, where a discussion was opened) and Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, they are useful. Djflem (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - A spit is a peninsula.Djflem (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly, Rusf10, almost every single thing that you've said so far in this discussion has been wrong. You've got the purpose of AFD wrong, what one can do in AFD wrong, how to fix this article wrong; and you even reverted someone who made the article better, making it worse again, in the very way that you bemoaned it being wrong above, putting it back to the title that you said was wrong. That was an especially daft thing to do. Please apply some thought. You are getting a lot of things wrong, and actually outright using editing tools to make the encyclopaedia worse after someone has improved it. Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, you are wrong. It is wrong to change the topic of an article during an AfD. The topic of the article I nominated was "Popponesset Peninsula". It This is what it looked like This so called "Pennisula", not only included not only the spit which has the official name of Popponesset Beach [43], but also a residential area. Then Djflem comes along and changes both the topic and the name of the article in a deliberate move to confuse the participants here. Anyone who comes the discussion now has no idea what they are voting on. The right thing to do would be to add content relevant to the article's topic (not a new topic) and then make your case. It is also wrong as it has been asserted here that a peninsula and a spit are interchangeable. The name change was not just a name change, it was a topic change.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is not a vote. People are not voting. It has been perfectly fine to rename and fix articles during an AFD discusssion for many years. It was fine to do so back when I first wrote the Project:Guide to deletion and has been fine, and a widely-used practice, in all of the years since. You continue your streak of being wrong with everything that you write in this discussion. Please apply some thought and learn how Wikipedia works. Djflem did not confuse anyone. But you were quite foolish to revert the fixing of a subject name that you yourself disagreed with. Uncle G (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now well sourced per WP:HEY and passes WP:GEOFEAT as the spit. Recommend keeping and going through with the move, which isn't explicitly against the rules at AfD, could also be merged in the worst case scenario. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinn Sharma edit

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

Non-notable filmmaker, search finds mostly just social media and directory listings; fails WP:GNG / WP:FILMMAKER. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I was on fence to nominate this one too. Thanks DoubleGrazing. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly WP:TOOSOON but then can always be recreated when a notable career has been established. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. Page deleted by Fastily as G7 following author request. (non-admin closure) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Nabaey edit

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

Ariana Nabaey

This martial artist does not satisfy martial arts notability or general notability. Originally created in draft space as autobiography by subject of draft, but declined by AFC reviewers. Then created in article space by a different self-promoting athlete, so that it cannot be moved back to draft space. Image of subject is own work of subject.

An article should speak for itself without the need to check references, but the references are mostly almost the same, a record of his fights, rather than significant coverage, so that he does not satisfy general notability, and does not satisfy any of the mixed martial arts criteria.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant
1	MMA Core. Info on fighters.		No.	Not really
2	Fight Time. Info on fighters.	In Russian. Machine-translated.	No.	Not really
3	Zard News. Info on fighters.	In Persian. Machine-translated. Seems to be referring to a female martial artist with the same name.	No.	Not really.
4	Sherdog. A usually reliable source on martial arts.		Yes.	No.
5	Tapology. Info on fighters.		Probably.	No.
6	MMA Core.	Info on fighters. Similar to reference 1.	No.	Not really.
7	Mixedmartialarts.com	Info on fighters	No.	Not really
8	Superlutas.com.br	Info on fighters. In portuguese. Machine-translated.	No.	Not really

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, sound nomination, failure of WP:NMMA. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject appears to fail WP:NMMA, WP:GNG, and WP:NKICK. My search found no significant coverage with some of the article's sources not seeming to even be about him. He has no top tier MMA fights to meet WP:NMMA. I found no evidence of him being a professional world kickboxing champion and the organization is not specified. I was also baffled by the claim of him winning 6 professional kickboxing world titles with a grand total of 5 career kickboxing victories. Papaursa (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of reputation, I submitted a removal request from the author--Parizad (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Alberta Social Credit Party. Sandstein 20:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Life Alberta Political Association edit

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

This is a fringe regional political party in Canada. All I can find in sources is WP:ROUTINE news coverage about generic election results and fundraising targets of Alberta political parties. Thus, I think this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "regional" is Provincial, it is a Provincial Party, not National (unlike the USA that is dominantly 2 Party system; Canada and its provinces has a Westminster Model of Parliament with multiple Parties.

If you're going to delete this page on the grounds that it covers ""...a fringe regional political party in Canada. All I can find in sources is WP:ROUTINE news coverage about generic election results and fundraising targets of Alberta political parties."" then delete the following Wikipedia Pages as well (also so-called fringe regional political parties :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_%E2%80%93_Alberta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Alberta :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Party_of_Alberta :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Alberta_(2016%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Advantage_Party

-Raygamman

"WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" -Indy beetle (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raygamman (talk • contribs)

~~Delete~~ Non-notable political organization who hasn't run a candidate in any election. Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as said below to Alberta Social Credit Party and fully oppose that article being renamed for this body as the ASCP has much more known history than this body which grabbed its history to try to gain undeserved WP:N it hasn't attained on its own. Nate • (chatter) 19:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote User:Mrschimpf "Whenever possible, I listen to local editors. There is nothing worse than someone who knows their local community left to right somehow being overruled in their edit by someone 1,000 miles away who has never come close to being in that area and just believes whatever the press says about something, rather than confirming it with someone who knows the subject closely." They did actually. And they're notable as to have a dedicated pro-life party is a first in Alberta, indeed Canadian history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raygamman (talk • contribs)

https://daveberta.ca/tag/alberta-pro-life-political-association/

https://www.apah.ca/papa-history

https://kimsiever.ca/2021/04/24/alberta-ndp-raise-227-more-than-ucp-in-q1-2021/

https://www.elections.ab.ca/political-participants/parties/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raygamman (talk • contribs)
- - Comment Those three sources only tell us people donated money to parties, which is expected in a political system, and the APAH source comes down to 'we knew a lot about the ASCP...but these new people in power we still are trying to determine what they do'. That's not really a good source either. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment FWIW the https://www.apah.ca/papa-history article in particular doesn't even mention monies raised, even cover's the org's history: "It’s important to note that in recent history Alberta - and, in fact, Canada - have had relatively little representation of dedicated pro-life politicians holding either provincial or federal office... As a result, many pro-life activist groups have been feeling like their demands have gone unanswered and that their representatives weren't willing to listen to their priorities. Fraser capitalized on the feeling of disenfranchisement among pro-life people and welcomed them to a party that would support their philosophy. With the pro-life activists who came to the annual general meeting, Fraser was able to overthrow the remaining Socred executive and members to stack the party executive with pro-life activists and replace Skowronski as leader." To be fair, sites like the APAH publish only, or at least mostly, when there is an election. When there is you'll see increased coverage. That was written during the 2019 elxn. Raygamman (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Raygamman, I know you're frustrated and that it's upsetting to have a subject you think is notable at AfD, but generally a deletion discussion goes for several days, so please slow down. Please sign your posts (include four tildes at the end), as right now I'm having to follow you around and sign for you. Why don't you and I adjourn to your user talk and you can ask questions about why other editors think this party may not be notable and what we need to see to show that it is. —valereee (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that! Am relatively new to editing on Wiki. Thanks for the explanation!Raygamman (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable political org does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NCORP nor WP:ORGCRITE. - Netherzone (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alberta Social Credit Party and rename that article to reflect party's new name, then update article to reflect party's change of name and platform. Party was notable under its previous name, that doesn't change just because the name changed and it's not getting sig cov currently. —valereee (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Frankly a rename shouldn't be pursued; if another organization usurped a nearly century-old party just to grab their lists and lobbying power, then it should be a short part of the ASCP's article, not the basis to rename it. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm happy to do that and redirect PLAPA to it, if that's what happened. Do we have a source that says that's what happened? I had a source (sorry, didn't save it, didn't think there'd be this comment) that said it was just a rename. —valereee (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - See this comprehensive article. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete'"' Non-notable and purely promotional. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep as is~~ One should not delete articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with. Raygamman (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks; the article is supported by WikiProject Alberta; the article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. Surely all that counts for something. Raygamman (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have already de facto voted with your first statement in response to the nom, thus it has been struck. And I'm questioning why you're quoting the opening intros of WP:INTROTODELETE, WP:CANADA, and WP:ALBERTA. Please stop just quoting things you find on pages (including mine) and find proper sources to indicate why this article should be kept. Nate • (chatter) 01:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I quote you because of the irony I see between your words, and actions here. I quote the opening intro's of the WP:CANADA, and WP:ALBERTA because they're on the "Talk" page of the Prolife Alberta Poli. Assoc. wiki article. The Prolife Alberta article is supported by those projects and I figure that counts for something. If I'm posting things I shouldn't or you don't like, I don't know what to tell you. I'm rather new to wiki and seemingly rather unfamiliar with it's ways and wiles. Raygamman (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename re: Alberta Social Credit Party. Missvain (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and absolutely oppose rename. The Social Credit Party was Alberta's government for decades and a major part of Alberta's history, but today most Albertans have never heard of the Pro-Life Alberta Political Association, which has never held a seat, let alone formed a government. I suspect those supporting a rename are not from Alberta or know little of its history. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alberta Social Credit Party; don't rename for now. I cannot find any non-routine, non-trivial coverage of this party; it thus fails WP:NORG. In any event, covering the party at the Social Credit Party's article seems to be a reasonable way to provide context and background, as well as serving as an alternative to deletion. Regarding the article's title, there's no need to resolve that here. Since the correct answer is unclear, a requested move discussion would be more reasonable. (In my view, we shouldn't rename articles at AfD unless it's actually necessary. In this case, merging doesn't require renaming, so the decision on whether to rename should be referred to other processes. AfD is not "articles for discussion".) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never Be Alone (series) edit

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

Completely unsourced since 2016; abandoned article claiming to be an upcoming TV series in 2018, it's now 2021. Hiddenstranger (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible WP:HOAX as I don't see any references to this show that don't just trace back to Wikipedia, just false positives that use the phrase "never be alone" in other contexts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. Definitely a hoax. Delete this and send it to the hoax list. Wizzito (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe existing sources do not meet basic guidelines for WP:N in terms of “significant coverage” using WP:RS GhostDust (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, borderline speedy. BD2412 T 05:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per research, the network has never produced this TV series on or before 2018, so definitely a WP:HOAX. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Per WP:G3. Definitely a WP:HOAX. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wallace and Gromit. ✗plicit 07:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace & Gromit: The Best of Aardman Animation edit

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

Unneeded. Coin945 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wallace and Gromit. Not nearly enough distinct coverage about this compilation to warrant an article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 08:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Sourced purely to IMDB. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I would say merge but there is nothing to merge... ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Going with keep on this for now - if you want to merge it into an article about the group of girls, go for it. Or, improve the Faruqi article with any sourcing. The article can always be renominated for deletion if desired. Missvain (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somaya Faruqi edit

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

[44] Non independent, [45], [46] These are not contributing much for notability based on many afd discussions, [47] This is self published, [48] Just a mentain, not indepth regarding her. Fails WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - The first source listed in the nom is a bylined article from Al Jazeera: The female Afghan tech entrepreneurs inspiring each other (2021) that includes facts, e.g. "Now 18, Somaya is the leader of the Afghan Girls Robotics Team – also known as the “Afghan Dreamers”, a name they gave themselves," and biographical information, e.g. "Somaya’s mother had to leave school when she was 10. It was 1996 and the Taliban had come to power and banned education for girls," as well as background context, e.g. "Somaya and the team first made headlines in 2017 when, despite displaying their remarkable ingenuity in robotics, they were denied visas to the United States to attend a robotics tournament." The second source is from BBC News: BBC 100 Women 2020: Who is on the list this year? (2020), "This year 100 Women is highlighting those who are leading change and making a difference during these turbulent times," and includes a profile of Faruqi that begins with: "When Afghanistan’s first case of Covid-19 was reported in her home province of Herat, Somaya and her all-female robotics team – the "Afghan Dreamers" – set to work on a low-cost ventilator to treat coronavirus patients." The third source is written by a Forbes staff writer: Get To Know The Youngest Members Of Forbes 30 Under 30 Asia 2021 (2021), which per WP:FORBES, Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. The fourth source is published by UN Women, and even though it is written by Faruqi, she is being featured as part of what appears to be a "Generation Equality" campaign, I am Generation Equality: Somaya Faruqi, young Afghan innovator who led the development of a low-cost ventilator prototype (2021) e.g. the subhead states, "Billions of people across the world stand on the right side of history every day. They speak up, take a stand, mobilize, and take big and small actions to advance women’s rights. This is Generation Equality," so it appears the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women finds her worthy of notice and contributes to her notability. The fifth source is from NPR: Unique Robotic Team In Afghanistan Creates Affordable Ventilator Prototype (2020) and offers details about how Faruqi and her team developed the ventilator, as well as challenges they faced, and there is a reference to an award that needs further research. Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aljazeera. Yes, the byline is there but this is not independent, more than half are quotes and written by the girl. For BBC, Forbes As I shared please refer other afd discussions regarding such awards. They are generally reliable but not considered in such cases. Main reason, this is not worthy as Forbes gives 30 u 30 to around 700+ people per year due to so many niches and categories. All the members of Generation Equality" campaign are not considered notable, please read the language of Unwomen. Its written by herself there is nowhere written published by unwomen and last NPR hardly few lines(no indepth), describing her teamwork doesn't make notable to specifically to her. Sonofstar (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:BASIC, "independent of the subject" footnote 6, ...The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it, and the Al Jazeera article is not written by the subject and it includes content about her that is WP:SECONDARY, e.g. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources, including but not limited to the background context of the 2017 headlines and other facts reported in addition to the interview. A source does not lose its independence because it includes quotes from the subject - it gains independence from the additional reporting. For BBC News and articles by Forbes staff writers, I am unaware of any AfDs that suggest articles from independent and reliable sources offering profiles of a subject and recognition of their achievements do not contribute to their notability. The UNWomen source is not 'self-published' in the sense that it is simply written by Faruqi on social media or her own platform - she is clearly being featured by the organization on its website and she has not written all of the content of the article, i.e. the subheadline appears to be from UNWomen. (They also feature her as one of "Four stories to celebrate girls in ICT," and she was profiled by UNICEF, and UNWomen Australia). As to the NPR article, and per WP:CREATIVE, Faruqi has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work and such work has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles, e.g. also Reuters, BBC, News18, so her notability appears to be supported by these sources. The Al Jazeera article also includes a reference to '2017 headlines' and the BBC profile of Faruqi also includes a reference to a slew of awards that suggest additional sources supporting notability WP:NEXIST. It seems clear that Faruqi is often being singled out as the leader of the team and accorded additional notice from independent and reliable sources, which supports a standalone article for her, and adding information from those sources and other available sources can help develop this article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright, at least you agreed that it fails WP:GNG. For WP:BASIC I don't think this is independent if you will read the language of content it's very clear that this is not independent without any doubt. I suggest lets others share their opinion, instead of us now. Sonofstar (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not agree there is a failure of WP:GNG, including because Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material and because I have only started to conduct a WP:BEFORE search to support revisions and improvements to the article. I referred to the WP:BASIC guideline for a definition of 'independent,' and this guideline also provides additional support for notability, because it states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not entirely sure whether or not she's independently notable, but the Afghan Dreamers (the robotics team she leads) certainly seems to be: [49][50][51][52][53]. I do see some good coverage of her, but it's all in the context of the team. pburka (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's also good coverage (including of her) here and here NHCLS (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made some revisions to the article, and from my view, it looks like her independent notability is supported by coverage and recognition after she became the leader of the team, including the Al Jazeera article that has a substantial focus on her and the context, the BBC 100 Women 2020 recognition of her, the UNICEF feature that focuses on her (and refers to itself as a 'documentary'), and her inclusion in the UN Women Generation Equality campaign. She seems to have become a notable role model independent of the team, and has been honored more individually and had more recent reporting on her, even when it is in the context of the team. There are additional sources that could further support an Afghan Dreamers article, including from when Faruqi was 14 and receiving less individual coverage (e.g. the visa problems, experiences traveling, challenges and extreme hardships experienced by the team) but that could be an effective complement for this article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Beccaynr's expansion. I still think this content might be more suitable in a larger article about the whole team, but that can be discussed on the talk page. pburka (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BBC100 enough would have swayed me, but there's way more than WP:BASIC on offer here. Passes WP:ANYBIO; WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a BBC subsidiary website that just getting in BBC100 is enough. Please show 3-4 reliable, independent, in-depth coverage about the Somaya Faruqi. All the changes and new sources are related to Afgan Girls and that too one event. The notability of Afgarn Girl and Somaya Faruqi is different.Sonofstar (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see references from 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021. Can you explain how "one event" applies despite continuing coverage over five years? pburka (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to point. I appreciate it if you can show the top 3 sources here which are not passing maintain and makes Somaya Faruqi notable.Sonofstar (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In footnote 2 of WP:GNG (after "Sources"), it states Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals, which is why I noted the UNICEF feature of her refers to itself as a documentary; there is also the BBC profile of her, the UN Women feature of her, and the Al Jazeera coverage. These sources include WP:SECONDARY analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources, are not trivial, and help show that she is distinctly notable per WP:GNG, in addition to the WP:BASIC notability from the multiple independent and RS cited above that report and comment on her work as the captain of the Afghan Dreamers, and her membership on the team before she was captain. Beccaynr (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the content of these sources, This is not independent. All are quotes and words given by herself. For BBC I already shared my opinion. I am perfectly fine and happy to accept a different opinion, but for me getting even 3 good sources is difficult. Sonofstar (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amund, Iowa edit

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

This is yet another spot copied into GNIS from the 1906 Iowa Geological Survey, and which also happened to be the location of a rural post office. After that, things become rocky. The topos don't go far back, and they don't acknowledge one of the two farms at the crossroads, even though it goes back into the 1930s at least. There might have been a third farm, though it's more likely part of the second, on the other side of the road. Anyway, searching gets hits that suggest a creamery, and for a hunting club, for the Farmers' Co-operative Telephone Company (organized there), and for shorthorn cattle and Duroc-Jersey swine. Does this add up to a town? At this point my answer would be no. It comes across as more of locale. A narrative of it as a town is conspicuously lacking. Mangoe (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even in Polk's Iowa state Gazetteer. Nor is it in the 1917 History of Winnebago County and Hancock County, Iowa at the Internet Archive, although people named Amund are. The sum total of all of the information that I can find is:
Amund: A hamlet and post office (1888-1907) in the northwest corner of section 22, Eden Township.
— Hawkeye Heritage. Vol. 13–14. Iowa Genealogical Society. 1978., page 176
So yes, it is documented as a hamlet in one source, 7 decades later, but doesn't turn up in contemporary gazetteers or histories. Everything else has just the post office, in post office directories and as "one mile west of Amund post office". No, I cannot in all honesty claim "Wally" as a reliable source. Uncle G (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User:Uncle G certainly seems to have established notability.
- The History of Winnebago County and Hancock County, Iowa, appears a reliable historic source, and supports that this was a hamlet. This is corroborated by Abandoned Towns, Villages and Post Offices of Iowa (1930), which also calls Amund a "hamlet", and furthermore differentiates a hamlet from a place that just has a post office.
- Uncle G also cites this genealogy board, but dismisses Wally Rutter as an unreliable source. All we're trying to do here is establish that this place had people living there at one time, and because this isn't some garage band trying to get its article onto Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure Wally isn't spamming the Norway Heritage Community genealogy board when he writes (in that same source), "Amund Iowa was a tiny hamlet, so to speak, in 1901 or so. It was just 2 miles south of the Minnesota, Iowa line. That would put it in easy walking distance of Emmons, Minnesota. My grandmother and him lived in a house north east of Amund."
- Here is an obituary published in 2009 in the Globe Gazette from Mason City, Iowa, for Darlyne Geneva Engebretson (82), who "was born on November 10, 1926, to Benjamin and Jeanette (Aske) Johnson in Amund, Iowa."
- This list of Iowans who served during WWI from North Dakota mentions "Larson, Gilman Julius. Marine #none; registrant, Stutsman county; born in Amund, Iowa, Feb 18, 1894".
Amund also appeared on a 1911 Iowa map by Rand McNally, which suggests it was more than just a post office. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the History does not support this, and I never said that it did. If you assert otherwise, I challenge you to give the page of the History on which this is named as a hamlet, rather than given as a person's name. (Hint: "Amund" only occurs in volume 2, which is the biographies. Eden Township is page 113 of volume 1, and has no Amund.)
  Moreover, I'm just putting Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources into practice, as you should but are not. Why on Earth is someone named "Wally" on a discussion forum on a WWW site a reliable source? Who is that person? What are xyr credentials? Do you even know? The Rand-McNally map is laughable, as it literally isn't even a dot on that map. Compare with the other named places; there's no actual equivalent hollow dot symbol next to Amund, and that isn't telling you what it is. This exhibits the very let's-just-assume-what-the-dot-on-the-map-is problem that underpins the whole GNIS mess. Lastly, things saying "in Amund" don't actually tell us what it is either. It could be a farm for all that that says. (And indeed Mangoe observes two oblique hints in sources that it was a farm.)
  The best that you've got is Mott, which is word-for-word the same as the Hawkeye Heritage but still decades after the fact. Polk's (which actually has a 1908 edition, but lists "discontinued" post offices in its 1918 edition), Lippincott's, and others are good for post offices, as well as post-hamlets, post-villages, and suchlike. (Hair's Iowa State Gazetteer is from 1865, so isn't to be expected to have something from 1888, and indeed it has not. For the same reason, it isn't to be expected in the 1886 Union Publishing History of Kossuth, Hancock, and Winnebago counties, Iowa.) But Amund does not appear in any of the actually contemporary gazetteers that I've been scouring to find all of these places. It doesn't come up in any of the history books on Norwegian settlement in Iowa. It's only in things like the 1909 United States Official Postal Guide, ironically listed in the section "POST OFFICES DISCONTINUED ON ACCOUNT OF RURAL DELIVERY" on page 702.
  Then you've got the problem that after all this all that we've got is "X was a hamlet" or "X was a post office" with no actual in-depth documentation, which directory listings and map dots are not. All of this effort only gets one over the "unincorporated community" hurdle of identifying the actual subject and getting past the GNIS rubbish, and doesn't demonstrate actual documentation in depth of geology, history, politics, demographics, &c. that notability needs.
  Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple short paragraphs here stating that this was a short small community founded in 1892 that dissolved in 1906 because the railroad wasn't close enough to serve as a shipping point. Agree with Uncle G above that the genealogy board doesn't count as RS, and the maps aren't going to be particularly useful for determining notability. ~~Leaning merge~~ to the township article based on the newspaper clipping I found devoting a couple paragraphs to this referring to it as a minor settlement and providing verification, but I don't think there's enough to support a stand-alone article here. My minimum is generally three in-depth sources, or two if both are really good. Here we've got one, and it's not that long. Hog Farm _Talk 21:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- switching to Keep - one of Milowent's sources is the same thing as the link I found above, and the one added about the P.O. closing is fairly trivial IMO, but between two others added by Milowent and the one identified by both me and them, I think this is keepable. Hog Farm _Talk 19:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some more sources and content about good old Amund.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Milowent's improvements (which establish notability) and the articles which specifically mention Amund being a town, rather than just a post office. Notability is not temporary. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of mass hysteria cases. Sandstein 11:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass fainting in Tanzania edit

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

Short article with a vague title, and there doesn't seem to be enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Jguglielmin (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of mass hysteria cases. The 2008 case seems borderline notable, and should at least be included in the list. But not enough in-depth coverage to warrant an article. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete This appears to involve basically a single incident which comes across as a relatively widely reported slow news day item, and which nobody cared about the day after. It doesn't appear to be a notable incident. Mangoe (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There are other cases of this – see Tanganyika laughter epidemic, for example. For a book on the subject, see Mass Hysteria in Schools. Policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Not sure this quite matches the content of that list, but there's obviously no lasting significance to this passing event. Unclear what the above book or article has to do with the notability of the topic at hand. Reywas92^Talk 04:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Harvey edit

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

Toxic combination of WP:ATTACKPAGE and WP:NOTNEWS. Congressional staffers are not inherently notable, regardless of how many controversies they were involved in. KidAd • SPEAK 21:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has SIGCOV in multiple RS satisfying WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Congressional staffers are not inherently notable", but they're also not inherently not notable: a WP:GNG pass is sufficient to establish notability. The coverage in The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, the Weekly Standard, and POLITICO, just to name a few, is clearly substantial enough, and the stories stem from different events, so WP:BLP1E wouldn't apply. The article is perhaps a somewhat unsympathetic portrayal of Harvey, but that can be dealt with via editing: deletion is not cleanup. And the article provides sufficient encyclopedic context to resolve any WP:NOTNEWS concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Olivencia edit

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

Fails to meet the criteria at WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. Google results show very little coverage, as I can only find scant articles with the subject mentioned in passing. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 22:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 22:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 22:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 22:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found no evidence that he meets WP:GNG or WP:NHOOPS. The article says he was a member of Puerto Rican national basketball teams, but I found nothing to show he competed at the Olympics or even the Pan American Games. According to one database, he did appear in some of 10th place Puerto Rico's games at the 1978 world championships, but that would seem insufficient to show notability on its own. When in doubt I defer to WP:GNG and I found no significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin Sarah edit

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

I can't find evidence on IMDB that there is any film by this name or any film that stars the actors listed here in the cast that goes by a different name. The only references online I see are sites that seem to be lifting Wikipedia's article as a description. This article was PROD'd but dePROD'd as it was previously deleted by a PROD 11 years ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a real film per [54][55][56][57] (and the archived IMDb page here), though it seems to have changed directors since the initial announcements. However, my search didn't turn up any significant critical reviews that would justify an article according to WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. DanCherek (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing sources do not meet basic guidelines for WP:N in terms of “significant coverage” using WP:RS. Just because it exists, does not merit inclusion in the project. Continuing to have this article exist in the mainspace is a violation of wp:indiscriminate GhostDust (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails GNG and NFILM. Nothing here to support notability. Kolma8 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFILM. This film doesn't even appear to be listed in the Internet Movie Database anymore, which suggests to me that it was a project that was never released, never completed, or never filmed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a person who discovered this article and nominated it for deletion, I suppose this film was announced, filmed at some point (or was close to begin the principal shooting) yet never released due to unknown causes which were never revealed. Nothing much to add, all the credible links and arguments were said by the other contributors. Prefontain (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best this is a film that was completed but was never released due to whatever reasons. At worst this is a film that was never completed or filmed at all. It's a fairly common story with films, to be honest. I was able to pull the official website up with Wayback and the status from mid 2011 is pretty dismal and gives off little impression that the film was completed or released. Whatever the status is, this is a non-notable film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Foison edit

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

Presenting this for discussion, as I think it may be a case of WP:BLP1E. I've already stripped some pretty egregious BLP violations, including negative claims that were either unsourced or sourced only to an unpublished "private message" (!) — though there's still some sketchy language left. Considering the BLP1E criteria: (1) most significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources is about the 2001 Requiem incident; (2) Foison has remained a low-profile individual in the 20 years since then; (3) the incident was not a significant one in the grand scheme of things. Note: most of the article's Atlanta Journal-Constitution references are brief announcements of performances, not significiant coverage. DanCherek (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there can be a case against evident BLP1E. Santosh L (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Pullein-Thompson edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. Does not seem to be independently notable other then the association with his famous children. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS in his own right to meet WP:GNG. 03:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete seems not to be notable and no obvious material to be merged into his wife or children nor a reason to redirect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelrahman Fakhri Abou el-Ila edit

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

Non-notable per WP:BLP1E. SL93 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not ever person charged with an act broadly defined as "terrorism" or in this case "attempted terrorism" is notable. There are no signs that this person is at all notable. Searches produce no substantial sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per JPL, not every wannabe terrorist needs an article, especially the not-notable ones. versacespace leave a message! 12:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actually, this one doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Besides, it doesn't even pass the notability guideline and very less information available Mommmyy (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Warner Bros. animated shorts edit

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

Utterly fails WP:V. I have googled all of the titles of these shorts and found almost no verification that they even existed (which is shocking for something that was made in 2004).

Of the five citations in the article, one is a personal blog on Blogspot, two are forum posts, and the other two are links to a long-deleted Toon Zone article which survives only as a backup on an unofficial fansite. Further searching of the titles yielded nothing of value outside user-submitted sites like Big Cartoon Database, fan forums, or Wikipedia mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure of sourcing. BD2412 T 05:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, BD2412. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly would be a worthwhile list to have if it could be cited to reliable sources but since it's based on speculation in self-published sources, we have little option but to delete Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of things that aren't. Interesting. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite shocking this even lasted as long as it did. versacespace leave a message! 12:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boy Howdy. Google ["the jet cage" granny tweety sylvester "executive tweet"] or something and you get this dense wall of text that says, among other things, that "Executive Tweet" was actually aired in 2007. The thing is, this rando blob of text is all over the internet... on trucking company sites, PI training sites, POS machine manufacturers, furniture designers, I mean you name it. Like for instance here on a used machine tool dealer site. Stream of consciousness stuff... Now I'm fascinated on how this came to be so. I'm assuming some virus put it there, and these particular sites don't have a webmaster who notices or cares (they're all small sites). Huh. Anyway, this is what my research found. Don't care about your dang article, delete it or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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