Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 18 April 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1956 Eilat bus ambush

1956 Eilat bus ambush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability. 2 citations only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maudslay II (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. jp×g 07:43, 21 April 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, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.D.C. Sanguedo

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

Unsourced since 2007, PROD removed in 2012, I can't find anything WP:GNG-related on this fifth-division club. They did participate in the (108-team, six group) third division in 1991, so coverage is possible, but I can't find much more than this (apart from database sites) to help source the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Not seeing strong arguments for keeping or deleting based on notability grounds and it seems like further discussion will not happen. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balut (game)

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

Seems like this game exists, but unsure if it has notability. Needs additional references, perhaps in Danish? Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I guess? Sources seem to show it's a significant game. Sources are a bit odd (one comes from what seems like a country club hosted on a weird host for such a thing) but seem legit. It looks like Yahtzee, but it has an interesting history and appears to have a serious following in Singapore among other places. As games go, I give it a 2/10, but that's not the measure here. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely documented, and there might well be enough independent sourcing for a biography of Eddie Woolbright, which I have left dangling, too. The original Danish content is somewhat misleading. Look to the Philippines.
    • Oaminal, Clarence Paul (2015-07-08). "Woolbright Drive, Beverly Hills, Cebu City". The Freeman.
  • Uncle G (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, partly because it seems well-enough sourced, but more because the Eddie Woolbright article would be an orphan without it until someone starts an article on Beverly Hills Cebu or Annie Corrales. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 23:05, 19 April 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. Fails WP:GNG right now. Perhaps in the future if the subject gets better coverage. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emirhan Özhan

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Regards. Kemalcan (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete No reliable sources exist: the ones in the article are from pure crap sites that may even have been paid to do the publishing. I would only call this one "alright". WP:BEFORE search shows nothing extra. Fails WP:ENT. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 10:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should not be deleted Because this person belongs to the category of internet celebrities. In many cases, it is sufficient for internet celebrities to meet some criteria. doing research about it to me, both in the material I created for Turkey, both of which we now find wiki article with the necessary resources to expand and am in favor of contributing. I do not find it right for an item to be deleted or nominated directly. OreoVeo (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I barely understood what you said. "In many cases, it is sufficient for internet celebrities to meet some criteria.": it would be nice if you actually told which exact criteria from which policy was met. None of the sources in the article are reliable and after a WP:BEFORE search I don't think any reliable ones are going to get added. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 17:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per the rationale by Styyx. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:58, 29 April 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. If any editor wishes me to restore to their draft space I am happy to do so if they message me. Fenix down (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Lewis

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

PROD removed but no reason given. I can only presume that draftifying would be challenged as well.

Rationale was Lacks significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject (so excluding St Pat's and West Ham's own websites and social media feeds and excluding routine transfer news and match reporting), failing WP:GNG. Has never played in a game between two clubs playing in a league listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL also.

I couldn't find any significant coverage from sources independent of Lewis in a WP:BEFORE search so I can't see any reason why the PROD rationale would be incorrect at all. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Soccerway has only youth team appearances for West Ham, one game as an unused substitute in the Premier League and then 14 mins in the semi-pro League of Ireland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or delete Not sure I have an opinion on which one to do, but this is WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft I saw a few hits on google, mainly routine stuff. I don't mind sending the article to draft space as every so often you can get players that play in the Irish league to pass GNG. He is still on the books at West Ham, so could also be loaned out to a pro league club. So I lean more towards draft'ing. Govvy (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft/Keep I agree with Govvy. The player signed a professional contract four years ago with a Premier League side and has featured 12 times in the EFL Trophy across 4 seasons - a competition where he has faced mainly League One and League Two clubs who feature mostly fellow professional footballers. League of Ireland may not be fully professional but teams from this league can reach the Europa League and sometimes Champions League - some of the most prestigious competitions in club football. I've now added some independent sources to the article. I believe the article should be kept, at the very least drafted. User talk:Kieran167 15:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - his career may come to something but at the moment all coverage is routine and his appearances are at youth level or in a non-pro league.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Right to Write

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

A non notable book. Tagged as an advert since 2010. Created by a single purpose account with likely conflict of interest. The book exists but I can't find any substantial reviews of it, just a paragraph here or there from the online booksellers. The refs in the article are primary.Desertarun (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has 323 reviews at Amazon.com, so clearly there is some interest in it. Athel cb (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge I feel somewhat confident that sources exist. But if good faith belief isn’t enough then merging is a healthy compromise. She is a highly notable author in this space and this book paved the way for bigger successes around the same subject matter. There is content to preserve at least in her author page. Archrogue (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Julia Cameron. Most of what I've found about this discuss it in relation to the author and her creative writing process, rather than of the book itself. I think that this would be best covered in a section in the main article, as it doesn't seem to have received enough coverage to really argue for its own article but is mentioned enough (even if in passing) to where a section devoted to the book would be good to have. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed about whether Cunard's presented sources are sufficient for notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 22:31, 19 April 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 That '70s Show. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point Place

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

My WP:BEFORE search failed to find enough coverage to suggest that this fictional location merits a stand-alone article. I think that any cited content would be better included in the That '70s Show article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:20, 19 April 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 Playboy TV. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 21:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Babes Doing Stuff Naked

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

My WP:BEFORE search failed to uncover the multiple reliable, independent sources that would be required for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 26 April 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. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worood Zuhair

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

This article is about person lacking notability, also the article with few or no reliable sources about a living person.

These references are:

  1. 2 written by this person
  2. 1 personal YouTube video
  3. 3 references related to DW channel interview
  4. 2 references that I can't verify their reliability.

Arabic article was deleted as it called as Bubble = (People notable for only one event)

--محمود (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more policy based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully, we'll achieve a consensus next round.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 21:09, 19 April 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 Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency rations

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

Believe this should either be deleted to make way for a move of Emergency Rations (EP) and add a hatnote to link to rationing there or turn this into a disambiguation. Either way I think the current article should be deleted, but not sure what the best replacement would be. Rusf10 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is plainly the primary topic, EP or no, and it's nothing to do with rationing, all to do with emergencies. Solution: leave the article where it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the current article should be expanded, and it clearly can be. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as-is Nobody searching for this term is looking for a 2002 concept album. Can be expanded with the help of the Rationing article, or can be merged there. Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. BD2412 T 03:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is about the kinds of foods kept in small-scale (per house, car, boat, etc) for emergency purposes. Rationing is about limiting available quantities of things during times of questionable supply. I hate to pull the "there's tons of references but someone else can find them" card, but it's a very fear-mongering, anxiety-inducing industry that I'd like to avoid if at all possible. You know... "Preppers". Estheim (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. I find it very difficult to believe that any more than a minuscule percentage of people looking for this title would be looking for an EP rather than the topic of this article. And the subject is nothing to do with rationing whatsoever. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as no real argument is presented for why this article is bad (deleting an article to make way for a redirect -- what). This is quite obviously a notable concept, with loads of sources everywhere. jp×g 04:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A case could perhaps be made for Emergency Rations (capital R) to redirect to the EP instead of this, be the title for the article about the EP, or be a disambiguation page, but none of those options require this article to be deleted. I think the current situation with hatnotes is fine (see also WP:ONEOTHER). Anyway, I added a couple of sources to the article. TompaDompa (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article definitely passes notability guidelines, I don't quite understand the rationale for deletion - none of the named reasons justify it. There's no criteria met for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. Less Unless (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Going with the delete rationale. If anyone wants to do a redirect, feel free to WP:BEBOLD and propose it or do it via the appropriate pages. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Picket-fencing

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

As per WP:NOTSLANG, this should be deleted. Furthermore, I am unfamiliar with this term and a search only brings up results relating to actual fences (as one would expect). Rusf10 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So: redirect? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:56, 23 April 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 03:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Ruiz (footballer, born 1983)

Luis Ruiz (footballer, born 1983) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one has me baffled - Playing (and scoring seven goals - maybe that's appearances?) for FC Luzern in 2010 or 2011 would have been very notable as they finished second in the Super League that season. The transfer announcement says to Águila linked in the article says he played for Luzern and Kriens, but I can't find anything confirming that he actually appeared for the club online, including in German. If he didn't play for Luzern, he fails WP:NFOOTY based on the information in the article and possibly fails WP:GNG as well. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 19 April 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. It seems like the nominator's question (acting as the deletion argument) has been adequately answered. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jelaca

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

I sure someone somewhere has this name, including the person who created the article who strangely has a website that links directly back to this article. But my question is has anyone notable ever been named this? Rusf10 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone notable ever been named this? well Tatjana Jelača, Danny Jelaca, Marko Jelaca are all Wikipedia articles. Seemed like those should have come up. Umimmak (talk) 21:10, 19 April 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 03:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaina Production

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

Badly fails WP:NCORP; I could not find even one independent, reliable source showing significant coverage of this company. Fails WP:NMUSIC; not one of the more important indie record labels. Also see Devrattan Kanda, which is now salted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 19 April 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 03:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. Even if the topic is notable, there is no encyclopedic content and the title should be Miami in popular culture. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:26, 19 April 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 03:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S.Vishnu Ruban Nair

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

Badly fails WP:NFOOTBALL as his career never reached a higher level than the third tier of Malaysian football, which is two tiers below the professional level. See also Soccerway, Tribuna and Soccerpunter.

The Stadiumastro source is only a passing mention but the other source (translated here) actually has a small amount of coverage about his parents and youth career, although I question whether this website has the reputation for fact-checking required to meet WP:RS. Also, WP:GNG clearly requires multiple reliable sources, not just one. Malaysian searches of Vishnu Ruban Nair and Visnu Ruban Nair came back with nothing better than The Star, a passing mention, and Sarawak Crocs, a transfer rumour from an unreliable source. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope. Policy based rationales point to deleting, however, redirecting to List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope makes sense as a search term. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-1606b

Kepler-1606b (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. The only references to this object in scientific papers are are as part of very long lists of exoplanet discoveries. I couldn't find any popular coverage although it is found in several online exoplanet databases. At the deletion discussion for the parent star, it has been suggested that it should be deleted or redirected. Lithopsian (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agreed, astronomical objects don't need to be notable, just a location and as more information develops it can be updated. Additionally, it takes time for science to catch up and go through the list of all the systems and planets they are finding to fully research and determine exactly what they have found. They do not have large teams doing this kind of research and most of the teams are often student or volunteer contribution at that compared to other kinds of research where lots of money and personal are being poured into it. FalconGrey (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These keep !votes illustrate well why I think new users shouldn't be allowed in AfD. Both users have a single edit in Wikipedia, and it's a !vote that completely ignores Wikipedia policy. Astronomical objects, like everything else, do need to be notable to have a Wikipedia article. See WP:NASTRO for specific guidelines. Frankly, how did you even find this deletion discussion? Tercer (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I feel and understand your frustration, there is no reason to attack the individuals posting the vote to add to discussion. That in and of itself does nothing for the discussion and changes it away from the point of the discussion. I have already, before making my vote, read the requirements, and still made my vote and will explain. TOO many today do not know anywhere else to go for this information but here. It isn't taught anymore where or how to look for it. If anything, site them over to a site such as kepler-1606-b at NASA where they can get more or proper information beyond the resources of the Wikipedia entry. Personally, I made my entry as plain as I did to try to 'open' civil discussion as I saw none. I see too many coming to Wikipedia looking for information then not knowing where to go there after. Most do not know how to use Google or any other search engine properly so need assistance finding the proper locations. A small link to assist won't hurt, only help Wikipedia's reputation of where to look for knowledge. FalconGrey (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And I do respect that fact as well as agree with it. That was why I was suggesting at the least, point the individual to where they CAN correctly find the information and explain why it's not here. This would save data space on the servers (which is the real reason behind this need of this criteria) and help those who have not been taught to properly use tools such as Google or have access to libraries (no need to be condescending to those less educated and or misfortunate). Additionally, there are those who live in areas where access to search engines are restricted and this gives them the ability to still access the information easier. As for responsibility, it can be argued that by choosing to vote, edit, or create entries you are making an active choice to hold the hand of anyone who comes to Wikipedia in search of knowledge by becoming a gatekeeper to the knowledge they are seeking. Even if done just once. Many of which of this younger generation, never being taught properly how to use other tools or to look elsewhere. Many of the elder generation, they are also stuck in this same situation simply because of disconnect by technological advancement. Having a single line explanation why there is NO information on the site about Kepler-1606b here but a link to where they can find the information, now that would make Wikipedia become even more of a source of knowledge and a useful tool. It wouldn't be for ALL things, no. This isn't Google. But, instead of holding a hand it would point those seeking the knowledge in the right direction and hold a place for future expansion when science catches up with itself. (My final argument on my thoughts in this discussion.) FalconGrey (talk) 02:43, 22 April 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 03:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:00, 19 April 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 06:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sude Mihri Çınar

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

Another very similar case to Büşra Demirörs. No senior national team appearances nor WP:FPL appearances so does not meet footballer criteria (WP:NFOOTBALL). She also does not appear to meet inclusion criteria for rugby players, if my interpretation of that guideline is correct (WP:NRU). In terms of WP:GNG, the article currently has 7 passing mentions in squad lists and 1 database profile page at the Turkish Football Federation, which every player that has even played 1 game in any of the top 3 tiers will have.

Nothing coming up in Google searches. Searching "Sude Çınar" instead of her full name will yield a lot of coverage about a social media personality, who is clearly a different person. A Turkish search did get a few hits but these are all just passing mentions and do not address Çınar in depth; for example Haberciniz, Onder, Internetspor, Haberin Asli and Olay53. None of those indicate notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 19 April 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 07:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

İpek Özgan

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

A very similar case to Büşra Demirörs. No national team appearances or ongoing career; no inherent notability so we need to look at WP:GNG.

Current references do not show any WP:SIGCOV and the article is currently a synthesis of stats from Turkish Football Federation. One source found through Google but it's only a passing mention. A Turkish search only yielded Wikipedia mirrors and profile pages on the usual football databases. No evidence that Özgan meets our inclusion criteria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 21:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zafir Patel

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Messe München. While Messe München's fate is yet to be determined, if it is deleted, then the redirect will be deleted at that time, so no need to wait. Consensus is pretty obvious here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analytica (trade fair)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG through lack of reliable source coverage. Created by a single-purpose account. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An NC close would be inappropriate, but no consensus has formed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 17:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:11, 19 April 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 07:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rialto Toolkit

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

Does not meet software notavility or general notability guidelines. As noted in the article (without a source) this toolkit development ceased in 2012, so probability of new coverage is low. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google searches reveal no meaningful coverage independent of Wikipedia, and no basic structures of an open source project (can't find a Github or any sort of open source community around it). May even rise to WP:CSD G3. Melmann 13:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 19 April 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. (non-admin closure) DasSoumik (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Das

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

As per norm Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Bengal Boy (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator -[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bengal Boy (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 19 April 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). SnowFire (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animalympics (soundtrack)

Animalympics (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
American Pop (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brak Presents the Brak Album Starring Brak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dexter's Laboratory: The Musical Time Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dieter: Der Film (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
El Lady (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's a SpongeBob Christmas! Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peanuts Greatest Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Once Upon a Forest (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quest for Zhu: Music from the Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rock-A-Doodle (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rugrats Holiday Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samurai Champloo Music Record: Departure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samurai Champloo Music Record: Impression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samurai Champloo Music Record: Masta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samurai Champloo Music Record: Playlist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scooby-Doo's Snack Tracks: The Ultimate Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Schoolhouse Rock! (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Songs from The Looney Tunes Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Space Ghost's Musical Bar-B-Que (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Space Ghost's Surf & Turf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SpongeBob SquarePants: Original Theme Highlights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SpongeBob SquarePants: The Yellow Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Alvin Show (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Last Unicorn (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Music of Ooo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Peanuts Movie (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Proud Family (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thumbelina (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a catalog of soundtrack albums, and every soundtrack album, even of notable properties like films and TV series, does not warrants an article as notability is not inherited. To say this is true for soundtracks of animated content would be the understatement of the decade (and we're only less than two years into it).

You may be thinking I'm just bundling a bunch of soundtrack albums without considering their individual notability, but no; every album I listed above fails WP:SIGCOV on an equal level. I checked every darn article in the categories of "Television animation soundtracks‎" and "Animated film soundtracks" (I don't know if anime is a different story so I haven't delved into that), looking for coverage with the usual WP:BEFORE methods: searching on google news, google, google scholar, google books, looking what chart positions are listed for each article and what professional reviews were available for these albums, and I can safely say all of these animated soundtracks don't warrant a whole article. A redirect or merge into their respective film, TV series or franchise articles, maybe, which we already do for soundtracks on articles about other animated content.

This is the usual notability of most animation soundtracks. There are exceptions, of course, likely the hugely-successful Frozen and The Lion King soundtracks that have charted and sold like crazy, but this is not typical. The most you'll find from these articles is one AllMusic review, another review from an un-reputable, likely self-published blog, and maybe one chart position and random press release announcement articles if you're lucky. Primary-source press releases, an AllMusic review, and/or one chart (especially if its Top Kid Audio) doesn't suffice WP:SIGCOV, except (as I have stated before on Afd) for instances where there's so many reputable charts and certifications even if there is no actual coverage.

If we want to talk about individual articles, Thumbelina's soundtrack may be recognized for being the only time in history anything animated was nominated for a Razzie apart from The Emoji Movie, but it was for one song that also has no significant coverage and it could (like the soundtrack) easily fit in the film article. A lot of The Music of Ooo's sources are not about the album, but about certain TV series seasons that happen to talk about the making the songs later compiled on the album. The Last Unicorn only discusses one song becoming notable, not the entire soundtrack. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep without prejudice against individual nominations a reasonable length of time apart (see prior discussions about 'individual nominations all in one day' for why I specified the last clause). I'm sure this was well intentioned. I'm sure, indeed, that the vast majority of these don't warrant independent articles. But this is still a WP:TRAINWRECK no matter how confident you are in that assessment. "Doesn't warrant an independent article" is for a soundtrack album in particular a big range -- some of them will want merging, some redirecting, some deleting, and some might end up kept. There is going to be significant variance in the outcomes indicated for 31 articles, and they cannot be handled as a bulk nomination. Vaticidalprophet 16:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are not familiar with any of these articles, then. I promise you, I did the research. These have the same amount of lacking coverage, and none will end up being kept, I'll tell you right now. I am aware of other nominations that had bundled articles of varying notability, and I checked to make sure this wasn't the case for this nomination. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. The Last Unicorn and Rock-A-Doodle are also America and Glen Campbell albums, respectively, for one example. These bulk nominations are bad practice, in my opinion ... not sure why Wikipedia even allows for them. Caro7200 (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Such massive bundling of nominations isn't a good idea. Every respective article creator notified about this discussion could come here and just vote keep, which would swiftly get it closed. As the creator of The Peanuts Movie (soundtrack), I am fine with that one being deleted, haven't looked at the others.--NØ 16:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - What even is this AfD? I second all of Vaticidalprophet's points. Individual discussions are the way to go.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - In considering the nominator's rationale and additional comments, I am still not convinced that these articles, submitted in the bundle that is this AfD nom, should be deleted outright. As part of the original rationale for deletion, the nominator noted that all of these articles are for soundtracks or spinoff albums of film and TV series for which articles meeting the general notability guidelines already exist. Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date. Deleting these articles is overkill as any and all of them can be converted to redirects, and even then I would be against bundling this many articles in one nomination. — Paper Luigi T • C 18:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date." Draftify the articles if this is a concern, but we are not a crystal ball, and thus we cannot assume "if they hold up to notability standards at a later date." It's rare any of these kind of releases do (which I know is also a little bit of a crystal ball statement, but trust me, I have experience editing and researching these kind of album articles). We don't need fully-live articles to have histories of contents and versions of pages. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your reply. I appreciate good-faith discussions on WP. In your assertion that articles of this caliber do not usually gain notability after time, I would like to share something. To point to a specific article that is of similar subject matter, I refer you to Cartoon Medley. That is an article about a CN album, similar to the ones in this nomination, created years ago that has been drafted, edited, and submitted for GA standards, for which it was approved. I created that article years ago, and I had little part in its expansion and subsequent nomination for GA. I laid the foundation, but other editors took it to a whole new level. This is one example, and I admit that it may be an outlier in the statistics used to qualify the articles in this AfD, but nevertheless, I am still opposed to your nomination of this many articles with regards to a solid answer for all of them in AfD. All that being said, you still have not provided a rationale as to why these articles should be deleted outright instead of redirected to a sufficient existing article. — Paper Luigi T • C 19:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eh, looking back..... you know what, I should withdraw the nomination with these comments and probably nominate these individually in case there aren't pages for some albums to be redirected to. Keep in mind that I did check the notability of these and left certain ones out because they were review by multiple sources and/or charted in multiple territories, so I didn't nominate every single animated soundtrack. If consensus states to nominate individually, I'll do that. Close nomination. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Agree with points above, that bundle deletion seems like a bad idea - individual deletion/redirection per article would be better. Note that some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day. Anair13 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:15, 19 April 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 07:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McKinley, West Virginia

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

Not convinced that this one represents a notable location. Represented on the 1906 topographic maps as a single building, and the name is gone on the next one. Does not appear in Hammill's fairly thorough 1940 directory of historic West Virginia place names. An old USGS publication lists no McKinley in Wood County, but just a McKinley school (Wood county is county code 54107) An Arcadia Press book for Wood County [7] mentions the McKinley School, but makes it clear that this is not equivalent to that school, as the site of McKinley itself is out in the middle of the woods, while the school was in town. I found an 1897 reference to a McKinley Coal Company operating in WV, but it was based out of Pennsylvania and cannot be connected to this site. I did find a reference to the McKinley Central Church in Wood County, and the Central Church does appear on topos as a stand-alone building a little to the south of the name of McKinley. Searching is very difficult because of the president, the school, and some old residents of Wood County having this last name, but I'm not seeing enough for a GNG pass here. Hog Farm Talk 21:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 21:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 21:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. I found the church too, mentioned merely as a referent for the location of a fossil discovery. Its graveyard is still there in aerial photographs, but with just the name "Central Church" attached now. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:16, 19 April 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 07:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SITE Engineering College

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL being a for-profit organization, in which case the rule says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria". The WP:BEFORE gave us nothing that makes it pass WP:NCORP Chirota (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:26, 19 April 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 07:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tirumala Engineering College

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

The article no sources presently. Fails WP:NSCHOOL being a for-profit organization (run by Tirumala Milk Products Pvt. Ltd.), in which case the rule says "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria". The WP:BEFORE gave us nothing that makes it pass WP:NCORP nor WP:SIGCOV. Chirota (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:18, 19 April 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. Closing this as a failed bundle. No prejudice to renomination as separate discussions though given the discussion considering some kind of merge might be a consensus outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between Chinese provinces and sovereign states by GDP PPP

Comparison between Chinese provinces and sovereign states by GDP PPP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivia WP:NOTDATABASE, and possibly WP:SYNTH. Normchou 💬 06:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Normchou 💬 06:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Normchou 💬 06:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also nominating the following related pages as per discussion below:
Comparison between Indian states and countries by GDP (PPP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Comparison between U.S. states and sovereign states by GDP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Comparison between Argentine provinces and countries by GDP (PPP) per capita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Trimton (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 20:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 20:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 20:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep I like Normchou's idea of merging into a column, though I do see the benefit of having a full list so you can compare multiple countries to a given state/province. WP:RS do use phrases like "X region which is comparable to the country of Y", so I don't think notability is in question. Jumpytoo Talk 21:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Chinese provinces have enough big GDP to have its page like US states has its GDP comparsion page for Nominal and PPP. We should keep GDP comparison pages for US and China cause they are 2 biggest economies and delete page for India cause its provices dont have significant GDP and page quality is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radom1967 (talk • contribs) 2021-04-12T02:02:24 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. The articles for the US and China are useful because those countries have economies large enough that ranking their top level subdivisions against other nations is insightful. The India and Argentina articles should probably be merged though. Humsorgan (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" comments don't really address the policy issues mentioned by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTDATABASE covers that is should not be "excessive listings of unexplained statistics" while I don't think the statistics mentioned on the articles above are excessive listings. They didn't lack context, as the context is clear to compare several states against several countries, as GDP of some of these states are bigger than some countries. It is also not reducing readability, as it didn't impede any readings. SunDawn (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:20, 19 April 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nelk

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

Abuse of WP:SELFPROMOTE, most sentences are poorly sourced and are first hand. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, several articles showing coverage including Toronto Star, Newsweek, ABC, New Jersey, and CBS. They have over 6 million subscribers on YouTube. Also mentioned alongside other Youtubers in this NYT article. The article does need to be cleaned up, but they seem notable to me. Mukedits (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, only 5 or 6 of the 43 sources in the article come from first-hand YouTube. The rest come from third-party sources. The sources that are first-hand are used for simple factoids, such as Gasparini’s reunion with NELK, or significant portions of the “History” section that simply don’t have a third-party source. Yes, the article may need some work but bottom line they are certainly notable enough to have an article (over 6 million subscribers and one of the strongest fan bases as well).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abobeck11 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per both arguments on top. Every one of their videos reachs 1 million views, and they're always in the news for drinking in college parties, or for misdemeanors (disrupting peace, trespassing, etc). Additionally, they've received a lot of attention, most notably back in October 2020, when they've met President Donald Trump, via Dana White. I don't see why even nominate this page for deletion when it can be further improved. JayzBox (talk) 19:25, 22 April 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 per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 15:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Byakul Maila

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

This is about the guy's work, not the guy itself. Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 13:50, 19 April 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 Keemstar. A request to semi-protect the page from further recreation can be done at the WP:RfPP. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft Monday

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

Redirect to Keemstar, which seemed appropriate, has been continually reverted. I am failing to see any evidence of enough coverage in independent sources for an article like this to be justified. Simply put, I'm not seeing enough of a WP:GNG pass and article, in its current form, just looks like a piece of fancruft and not an encyclopaedia article. Taking this to AfD to hopefully establish consensus. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:10, 19 April 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 Bataraza. At first glance, I though this might be a keep, but two things come to mind. GEOLAND doesn't guarantee acceptance by virtue of being a distinct populated area, it basically says that it is likely that the place will be able to meet WP:GNG. Evidence that is does pass this test is missing from the discussion. Second, to prepare for closing, I went to List of barangays of Metro Manila and discovered that most barangays are indeed not notable, and only those with significant coverage are, showing again that notability is not "granted", it must be demonstrated. I have a very liberal perspective of GEOLAND / GNG, but there is still a bar to be passed. The discussion regarding keeping the article was interesting, but not convincing. It may be notable some day, so I've chosen to redirect to Bataraza so the history isn't lost. If someone wants to redirect within that article, that is fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarusan

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

Fails WP:GNG. It has 4 references. Two are from Google Maps, which are not WP:RS, redtac-observatoire, which I cannot vouch if it is reliable or not, the reference used is not even about Tarusan but its mother town of Bataraza, and the Philippine Statistics Authority, while is WP:RS, it's their job to collect data about every barangay there is, and inclusion to their lists is not evidence of WP:N, plus it just has data if it's rural or urban and its population, neither of which are useful for discerning notability. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eostrix: I think barangays should be exempted from WP:GEOLAND and their creation should be discouraged especially when their parent municipality's article is short. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND doesn't even guarantee notability. It just says "typically presumed to be notable". Any "Populated, legally recognized places" still has to prove via the article itself that it is notable. FWIW, SNG defers to GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A village of some five thousand souls is much larger than populated places that are typically kept. This village is distinct from other settlements in the area, the next blocks of houses on a map are several kilometers away (up and down the coastal road).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is cute, but so what? How does that make this notable? That article doesn't demonstrate that the place is notable. The article currently fails WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a tabular list of barangays targeted by AfDs, with listed outcomes of the discussions, found at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I would want to give the article's creator a chance to assert the article's notability per WP:GNG (and not just WP:GEOLAND). But my view for more than a decade now is that most barangays in the Philippines are not notable because they wouldn't pass WP:GNG. Most of them will be just like this current barangay in question: a bare bones stub article about dry statistics like population and the like. —seav (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Superastig: Are you suggesting that we should make a disambiguation page for three unnotable articles? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eostrix: That's not how barangays work. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In assessing GEOLAND, I am not looking at whether this is a barangay or not but whether this is a separate settlement geographically.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barangays are never separate from municipalities. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eostrix: What are talking about Tarusan being in between Bataraza and Rio Tuba? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basic map reading - I am referring to the actual town of Bataraza (where Bataraza National High School, for instance is located, note that Tarusan National High School is named after Tarusan and likewise Rio Tuba National High School), not the municipality division (which is more like a county than a city). The concept of Philippine Barangays and municipalities (which are not exactly municipalities in the sense used elsewhere, but often like counties) is immaterial. What matters here is that Tarusan is a distinct village. Lest we get into map reading too much, this is how The Manila Times refers to it: "the remote village of Tarusan, also in Bataraza" [8]. It's a village, hence we as a gazette include it per GEOLAND.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How these schools are named are immaterial. These could've been named as "Bataraza West National High School" or "Bataraza National High School Annex", and it still wouldn't made a difference. Barangays are not counties. I love it when Westerners apply their concepts to alien concepts. It's not like that at all. I dunno what counties are you speaking of, but U.S. counties are composed of towns and cities. A group of barangays are towns and cities. Tarusan supposedly relies on Bataraza poblacion (or another poblacion from another town if it's nearer to that one). That doesn't make it an independent settlement. 15:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: Do you have anything to add here? I'm not very good at explaining things. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eostrix: Therein lies the difference. In the Philippines, Barangay 666 and Tarusan are legally the same. If we're going to how GEOLAND defines this, Barangay 666 is a "populated, legally recognized place", just as Tarusan is, and not just "a collection of buildings". The concept of "city wards" as different from "villages" in the Philippines does not exist. The actual town of Bataraza, the "populated, legally recognized place" includes Tarusan. If we're using the WP:GEOLAND definition, not the entirety of Tarusan will qualify, only the contiguous area where the people live, and this "contiguous area" is not a "populated, legally recognized place". And even if we'd do mental gymnastics on this one, it's still not a guarantee that the contiguous area in Tarusan where people live automatically qualifies for an article. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The legal peculiarities of Municipalities of the Philippines, which in rural areas are effectively a County, are not material in my mind. Anyone looking at a map sees that the towns of Bataraza and Rio Tuba (26 kms away, has its own airport) are distinct. The village of Tarusan is also a distinct settlement. They are all in the same county/municipality, but no geographer would see them as one settlement. Hence, The Manila Times refers to this as "the remote village of Tarusan".--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I think of barangays as "villages", The World Tonight (Philippine TV program) comes to my mind. The oldest existing newscast here (by ABS-CBN's Kapamilya Channel) always call barangays as "villages". Barangay captains as "village chiefs". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Barangays" are usually translated as "villages" in English. I'm not surprised that Manila Times described it as that way, because it is.
Describing rural areas as "counties" is WP:OR. Rio Tuba is never described as a town. A mining community, yes, a barangay, yes, even a mining company, yes, but never a town. This is a classic example of Westerners imposing their whiteness to the Philippines. Give me a break. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eostrix and Necrothesp: You guys need to understand that having small pockets of settlements in the Philippines does not necessarily correspond to them being separate from other pockets of settlements. These could all be in a single barangay. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The media calling barangays "villages" is ridiculous. Some gated communities (which are usually called subdivisions) can also be called villages. But does that make them a barangay? Do they elect their officials? No! —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To make things more confusing, some gated communities are concurrent with a barangay. Or maybe the other way around. There are tons of possibilities! —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But one thing's for sure, the Philippines isn't the US or the UK! —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The rich kids at Dasmarinas Village say hello. But for lack of a better English word, "village" is okay. I prefer "community". It being translated into English opens a can of worms that are lost in translation.
I love how this is being thought of. Are sitios and puroks notable? Are gated communities, because let's face it, these are "separate settlements" as they have really high walls and a militia with high powered firearms to keep out heathens, notable? Interesting. Again, I'd argue for WP:GNG. If your sitio, purok and rich kid's paradise can pass WP:GNG, be my guest. We don't want articles that are mere database entries. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hamlet, village, town, city are geographical terms for human settlement, they are well defined. The peculiarities of modern administrative divisions (barangay et al) in rural area of the Philippines, is not as important as geography.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We just call them "mga barangay"... —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same guy who calls "Rio Tuba" a "town". The "townsfolk of Rio Tuba" might disagree. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still basing your argument on WP:GEOLAND, though, or on something else? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source: "the mining community of Rio Tuba"[9] (A community with a large builty up area, a sea port, and an air port). WP:GEOLAND and WP:5P1 as a gazetteer.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is cute. Does that make it a town? I know requirements for cityhood in some states in the U.S. is pretty low, like 5,000 people is enough. We're in the Philippines, though. It's true that it is a "mining community", I don't think anyone has disputed that. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, no one's disputing that notability of Rio Tuba here, or elsewhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Howard the Duck: just sharing... Parker, Pennsylvania, the smallest city by population in the state, has a population of smaller than that of Batanes' Uyugan (and it is a shrinking city too). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eostrix and Howard the Duck: think the best comparison is on Russia's so-called "selos". A selo is a type of rural localities there. For Chukotka alone (an autonomous okrug in the Russian Far East), there are 57 rural localities as of 2002 census, but only 41 have their own enwiki articles (like Anyuysk which appears on various Philippine-made chart-type world maps available in many bookstores and bookshops here). So even in other countries there is strict adherence to notability. BTW, I see the article Meillonnas as lacking sufficient sources. I randomly selected this commune out of dozens of communes in Ain department of France. Personally I find Meillonnas as a "skeletal article". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One unique thing about Philippine barangays (and actually for anything related to the Philippines) is that all of the information you can find is in English. Just make a database-like entry, and boom! It qualfies for WP:GEOLAND! Doesn't the Cebuano Wikipedia have database-like articles about all of the French communes? It's terrible. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chukotka settlments includes Apapelgino (population 5) and Krasneno (population 63). There are dozens of Russian settlement articles with a population of less than 10! (e.g. Chayygda (population 4), Chengere (population 0), Chiryapchi (population 8), ...). I can assure many of these exist only due to GEOLAND, being non-descript outside of census and adminstrative data. Tarusan has 4,926 people.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. If we're going to WP:GEOLAND where it has to be "Populated, legally recognized places", and you're arguing it only applies with the actual "settlement", which doesn't always correspond to the barangay. The thing is, the actual contiguous area of settlement is not "legally recognized", only the entire barangay is (I assume the 45 sq. km. of the barangay is not 100% made up of the "settlement", there can be mountains or inhabitable area) . You can even use WP:GEOLAND argument for that, if that's the case, because the actual area settlement per se is not "legally recognized", only the entire barangay is. But you aren't arguing this for the "entire barangay", just for the "settlement". Howard the Duck (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
City limits (or village limits) can extend well past the built up areas. For instance, Valsot (population 854) has an area of 158 sqr km of which "32.7% is used for agricultural purposes, while 26.5% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 0.7% is settled (buildings or roads) and the remainder (40.1%) is non-productive (rivers, glaciers or mountains)". Erstfeld (population 3,787) has 59.2 sqr km "11.7% is used for agricultural purposes, while 29.2% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 2.8% is settled (buildings or roads) and the remainder (56.2%) is non-productive (rivers, glaciers or mountains)". Haslen, Glarus (population 999) has 15.8 sqr km: "42.9% is used for agricultural purposes, while 45.2% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 3.3% is settled (buildings or roads) and the remainder (8.6%) is non-productive (rivers, glaciers or mountains).".--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eostrix: but not all Russian selos (let's say Russian rural barangays) have their own articles. Again, 41 out of 57 Chukotka selos have their articles on enwiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only because they haven't been created yet. If someone were to create them, they'd pass AfD.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: Which is not what's being argued. What is being argued is that a defined, legally recognised settlement (that is, a settlement that is clearly separated from another settlement and has its own identity) is held to be notable in the rest of the world, so the Philippines should be no exception. A handful of houses that may be given a name locally but which are not legally recognised as a separate settlement do not fall into this category. A sub-division of an urban area does not necessarily fall into this category. The settlement that we are debating here clearly does. It is clearly what in much of the rest of the world would be referred to as a village. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:55, 28 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Broeker

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

Classical music researcher. This article was speedily deleted as WP:G11 (promotional) and WP:A7 (no claim to notability). Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 11 decided to send it to AfD. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 11:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 11:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 11:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Just a note that there was a related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Single-purpose IP 82.173.133.70 [I'll update the link when that discussion is archived, which may be soon]). – Athaenara ✉ 13:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A) the article is overly promotional. B) I'm not seeing sources that meet the GNG other than maybe one review of one of his books. The sources in the article don't appear independent of the topic. So I'm leaning toward delete but hoping someone can find GNG-compliant sources. Hobit (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons given here. When I've time I'll review the article. The link provided by Athaenara (report of a single-purpose-IP) btw. is completely irrelevant here! Uwe Martens (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After investigation, sources: [11] (duplicate link: [12]) Review in an academic journal of a publication by the author. Seems to be mentioned here. This and this, although an interview and a small mention, seems to indicate that he has a notable impact within his discipline (the niche of contemporary music, but then again...). Given that the article subject appears to have a significant impact within their discipline, and that one of their published works/collections seems to be a significant one (being included in what seems a significant collection by the RILM certainly doesn't appear to be a mean feat), I'd think they pass WP:NACADEMIC; and there's enough information to write something encyclopedic. WP:DINC, and while some parts could be trimmed or maybe checked for tone, it does not read like anything exceptionally promotional to me which would have warranted the original speedy deletion. So that's a Lean keep from me, Of course, with a big admonishment to the original creator for writing an article about themselves. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to new article To clarify (see also further comments below): the author seems to have one significant work which is held by reasonably well-respected institutions; but his notability otherwise is very borderline; and the niche topic doesn't help. That would probably make this something like WP:BLP1E. Weighing all of that, I wouldn't object to a page being created about the author's work itself, since at least what can be found indicates it likely is acceptable per WP:TEXTBOOKS and/or WP:NBOOK no. 3 (review + RILM seem to confirm that). The author's name could then be kept as a redirect to that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't support this proposal, because the e-book is only a summary/catalog of composers and their compositions. Tobias Broeker's main work are thousands of music scores that he has edited and published, many of them commissioned by living composers. It should be noted that the comparison below of the anonymous IP user with the main music publishing companies with hundreds of employees fails completely, as Tobias Broeker appears to be an individual entrepreneur. He clearly fulfills the notability, based on hundreds of backlinks and listings from reputable institutions (what I referenced on DE:WP have been only the first two pages of the Google results). Earliest on weekend I'm able to work on the article here as too much time was wasted on WP:ANI. The e-book itself could perhaps get an additional stand-alone article, which of course could be discussed. Uwe Martens (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Judging from the reviews in journals and the commentary on the RILM; the book appears to contain substantial, if short, biographies of the composers (it would certainly qualify as an RS). My opinion about the individual remains that notability is very borderline. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • RandomCanadian, you can simply download the e-book (for free) from Broeker's website if you are interested. If you cannot find it I can post the exact link. :) There are no biographies at all. Other than an eight page cover/introduction, it is a pure list: the format is simply e.g. (first entry) 'Ke Jian A (1933-) wrote a violin concerto ('Hung Hu') before 1982 that lasts 15 minutes'; (second entry) 'Gunnar Aagaard Andersen (1912-1982) wrote a concerto for 5 violins and slide projector in 1949', etc. etc. . 82.173.133.70 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uwe, you say that the e-book is 'only a summary/catalogue' and that the notability is in fact 'publishing'. But the 'publishing' is actually completely unsourced in the article other than what Broeker has written himself. The Google links you post are not good: they're Broeker's personal website and the Wikipedia edits he made himself. If you want to focus on publishing, the argument for deletion in fact grows stronger. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Note for the fellow readers: Hundreds of backlinks to the website of a music publisher indicate notability. If the website has a private, commercial and/or musicological character is another chapter. Now I would be very happy if no more personal addresses are brought to me as I won't respond! As I told: I'm out of here! Uwe Martens (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, albeit weakly. The Iwazumi review is an excellent source, but it's the only reliable, independent treatment of Broeker and/or his work that I could find. If we're going by WP:NACADEMIC #1, a single journal review doesn't suffice. Neither is a single review sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR #3 (needs multiple independent periodical articles or reviews). If additional sources could be presented that demonstrated significant coverage of Broeker, that would probably convince me, but none outside of passing mentions and interviews turned up in my search, and the other ones listed in the dewiki and enwiki articles are not independent or don't really go towards establishing notability. DanCherek (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original nominator. This is an article that Tobias Broeker, who claims to be a notable musicologist and publisher, wrote about himself. His work is fully self-published and self-promoted and there are simply not the secondary resources to demonstrate notability. The article is supported predominantly with links to Broeker’s personal website and small handful of small pages where his name is mentioned in passing.
  • The main claim is through an e-book Broeker has posted to his website. This has only had one serious review, which also raised concerns about its scholarly value ('has several areas that could be improved from the standpoint of a scholar or serious performer').
  • Other than this single review, there is very little to no coverage other than what Broeker has written himself. He has ‘deposited’ the e-book in local libraries, but there is a fundamental difference between a source saying 'this work exists' and ‘this work is notable and here are secondary sources explaining why and how’. We do not post every PhD student’s thesis after it goes to their university library. Also, note the non-existence of journal articles or biographies about Broeker, whether about the man or his work. Except the articles he wrote about himself.
  • The ‘this is a niche area argument’ is misleading. Genuinely notable musicologists and catalogues get plenty of recognition in secondary sources. For specialist musicologists, think (only really quick examples but there are lots more) of Peter Wollny, Robert Levin (musicologist), Eva Badura-Skoda Roger Nichols (musical scholar), Christoph Wolff and simply search for their publications and secondary coverage. Then compare this to Broeker. For catalogues, do the same for Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, Schubert Thematic Catalogue, Ryom-Verzeichnis and then compare to Broeker’s e-book. Broeker is far away from having a ‘significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources’, which is Wikipedia’s requirement. Arguably, the impact is close to zero or else there would be the secondary sources to prove it.
  • Broeker also claims to be an important ‘publisher’ of music scores. Broeker claims these to have been made ‘in cooperation with national libraries’, but it is significant that this is not supported anywhere other than an article he wrote himself. An analogous example is the following: I get a scan of a Mozart manuscript from a library website, type it up again and put it as a digital download on my personal website. This does automatically mean I am also notable, even though Mozart is notable. People do this every day for the International Music Score Library Project and do not write Wikipedia articles about themselves. For specialist publishers that do get secondary coverage, see for example Bärenreiter, G. Henle Verlag, Universal Edition and Boosey & Hawkes and compare to Broeker.
In conclusion: Broeker is far away from having any reasonable notability as a ‘musicologist’ or ‘publisher’ and his self-written article should therefore be deleted. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not seriously comparing musicology about Baroque music (a very well known topic) and musicology about the rather unpopular and very niche contemporary music scene, are you? Same thing for the publishers. The review in an academic journal is not simply "this work exists", despite your mischaracterisation of it (and well, reviews of scholarly works usually include which elements could have been done better, so that is nothing surprising). Also note the entry at RILM: [13] (at the very bottom); which seems to indicate this is "the only comprehensive repertoire compendium of compositions written in and around the twentieth century for violin". The journal review and this make this very different from a "PhD student's thesis". Stuff such as this (Du côté des écrits, le fonds s’est enrichi de la troisième édition du répertoire des œuvres pour violon concertant réalisé par Tobias Broeker, [..] - this, like the RILM, is a reputable collection, not just a place where any stranger on the street can deposit an e-book. If the author's notability is questionable, his work certainly seems to be significant within his discipline; so I'd argue that another possibility would be to move and refocus on the work itself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RandomCanadian, thank you for the reply. I wasn't comparing Broeker to Baroque music only (Nichols is famous for Belle Époque French piano music, Boosey/Universal both publish huge amounts of important contemporary music, ...). Let me know if more sources would be useful.
Broeker's remit is actually very wide: 'violin music since the 1890s', so we're talking household names like Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Bernstein, Prokofiev, Copland, Schoenberg etc., 130 years of music for one of the most popular instruments. However, look up one of the many well-known 20th century violin concertos and see how many writers cite or reference Broeker in this context: none.
I agree that the academic journal review is a good source: my point was actually that we are very limited beyond this. For genuinely notable musicologists and publishers, no matter the exact speciality, sources are really plentiful and easy to find. For Broeker we are scraping the barrel, especially given that he had to write his own Wikipedia article. The different between him and established musicologists and publishers with Wikipedia articles is staggering. But I accept your opinion leans a different way right now and I don't mean this personally against you at all, the whole tone here has unfortunately been too heated. :) 82.173.133.70 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The community has to thank the anonymous IP user for confirming that he still didn't get the subject of the article. The article didn't claim with any word that Tobias Broeker would represent/publish well-known composers and compositions. On the contrary, a large part of his work consists in unearthing unknown, already deceased composers and works, besides representing living contemporary composers. The name-dropping of well-known "classical" composers fails completely here and has to be seen as nothing more than a failed attempt to manipulate this discussion! Also the reference to contributors on IMSLP digitalising scores from Mozart is missleading as those hobby contributions are not listed anywhere in national libraries or universities as referenced in the German article Tobias Bröker sufficently, which will be implemented in this article. <SCNR> -- Uwe Martens (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators. --hroest 14:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources mentioned by RandomCanadian are insufficient to show notability per WP:PROF and indicate at most marginal notability under WP:AUTHOR (we usually require multiple published reviews of the author's work and that's not in evidence here). Since this is a WP:AUTO case pushes it definitively into the 'delete' column. Nsk92 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on presented coverage. That's one good review of a work, and nothing much else to fill in the gaps aside from a few passing mentions. Counting backlinks to a website (if that statement is factual) isn't in it with determining notability, sorry. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of independent published comment on the person. The article looks like a low quality (lack of secondary source content) but acceptable article on a historical figure, but this is not an historical figure but a currently active person. This lifts the threshold considerably, and it is not met. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 21 April 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 G7. G7 (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 15:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastien Lepinoy

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. References are mix of primary WP:SPS profiles, interviews and paid entries. Not a single WP:SECONDARY source. UPE. See COIN scope_creepTalk 11:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:05, 19 April 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 07:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sushil Pokharel

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

Blatantly promotional (and always has been). None of the references that are currently in the article ([15][16][17][18][19]) constitute sigcov of him as a person, and a BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything useful, at least not in English. There may be some in other languages, but regardless, I think this is probably solidly in TNT territory. Best, Blablubbs|talk 11:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:30, 19 April 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 07:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dial Square Football Club

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

Newly-formed amateur local club playing at the notional (not officially defined) 14th level of the English football league system. Long-established cut-off for notability is level 10 (the level at which teams are eligible to enter the FA Cup). No evidence of GNG pass. Note if Googling to find sources that the club has adopted the original name of the obviously far more notable Arsenal F.C. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:30, 19 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"El Cashico"

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

Non-notable neologism. Search found several sources using the term (incl. some RS ones like BBC, Telegraph, etc.), but WP:NEO requires sources to actually discuss it, not just use it, for notability to be established. Of those, I found none. (Also, the article mentions two competing terms, 'El Cashico' and 'Oil Classico', suggesting the neologism isn't very well established yet.) Hence fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unclear if this article is meant to actually be about the rivalry between the two clubs or simply the use of this term to describe it, but either way it's not notable. There's no real rivalry between the two clubs and no evidence that this term has caught on as a way to describe it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
if you read the whole thing, it is noted that it isn’t necessarily a proper rivalry, but is used in the media to describe it -Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:31, 19 April 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 03:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Koliai

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR translated from Iranian WP, coverage looks very much like online ads; no mainstream media coverage at all. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Important Note: It's not right to tag a translation page from the Turkish to English page as a quick delete tag or remove a poll tag. Probably these Arab users did not realize that they should not label the translation of a Turkish Wikipedia page into English as deleting the poll. I'm asking the wiki administration to get this feature from some users Because unnecessarily, the articles of people like me spoil or challenge In general, translated pages of Wikipedia in any language should not be labeled Quick Delete, Timed Delete, or Poll Delete.I have a request to save the page from the administrator. With much appreciation and thanks Farhad Jalili j l o (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Owning 3 dependent articles: This kidney character has already been mentioned in 3 separate pages in Persian Wikipedia Therefore, he is the author of 3 related articles And it is his inalienable right that his name, which is more than 7 years old, is mentioned in 3 other pages of Wikipedia Have a page for himself With due appreciation and thanks j l o (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:32, 19 April 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 03:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holeum

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacking coverage in multiple independent sources. The article is mostly sourced to the authors themselves; the exceptions are [20], which merely cites the original paper in a long list without talking about it, and [21][22]. These articles do talk about it, but both are from the same author, so it's not enough to get multiple independent sources. I did search a bit for papers mentioning the idea, and found plenty unpublished or published in predatory journals, but nothing else respectable.

And come on, studying a gravitationally bound state of two microscopic black holes using Newtonian gravity and non-relativistic quantum mechanics? Tercer (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tercer (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above discussion. When the only reliable, independent sources that Google Scholar can turn up are unrelated geology papers thanks to OCR errors for "petroleum", it's a bad sign. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Minder

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

All the existing reliable and independent sources are related with the false-discovery claim of astatine. I couldn't find reliable and independent sources to prove its notability. Nanahuatl (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After the element 85 debacle, he seems to have switched to dosimetry [23]. I am not sure if he could be considered notable for this work. Certainly my impression looking at the sources I could easily find is that he mostly is mentioned as a walk-on part as one of the doomed seekers of natural element 85, but maybe that just means I am not looking in the right places. Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found much the same as Double sharp, with the exception of an entry in a 1969 book entitled Who's who in Atoms, volume 2 which seems to have a little more. Some of the chemistry books do give more information than this, such as the place of birth and when Minder retired, but not much. A reader who looks for this subject should be redirected to the actual subject that xe is one person within. Perhaps a biographical footnote at Astatine#History is enough, as that's how the world at large seems to treat this. Uncle G (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, possibly selectively merge to Astatine#History, where the element discovery topic is already covered. The article doesn't establish notability apart from that. Sandstein 09:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it seems that the same would apply for Alice Leigh-Smith since she also does not seem notable apart from this 1 event. --hroest 14:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC) PS: and also Helvetium which is also currently under AfD, which is a good time to merge all articles at Astatine#History. --hroest 14:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alice Leigh-Smith has at least three separate claims to notability in her article: "first woman in British history to receive a PhD in nuclear physics", false discovery of astatine, and subject of semi-biographical novel. So I don't think a merge or redirect would be appropriate in her case. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should not be about some notion of evening things up. Human knowledge is not even. Some people's life and works are better documented than others, and documented in the context of more than 1 thing whereas others are not, and from the articles alone that is clearly the case here, even if I hadn't just checked a bunch of books with these two in them. Go and look at ISBN 9780199383344, for one example. Leigh-Smith is in the main body of the work, life discussed at length, including husband and travels. Minder's life is a few sentences under a picture, and a couple of sentences in a preceding chapter. Uncle G (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added in the little bit about Minder's life from Uncle G's source. (He was also a pacifist and demonstrated twice against the possibility of Switzerland acquiring nuclear weapons.) Still not sure if that is enough to make him notable. Double sharp (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sandstein's suggestion. As written this looks like a case of WP:BIO1E. It's possible his book Radiumdosimetrie could save him from that, but for that we would need published reviews and I didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it seems he has written at least four books "Radiumdosimetrie", "Röntgenphysik", and "Strahlenchemie" and Geschichte der Radioaktivität. After his death, this obituary was published in the Der Bund, a major Swiss newspaper. Printing a long obituary in a major newspaper further adds to notability. From his obituary is also becomes evident that he was viewed as a pioneer of nuclear energy and radiology in Switzerland. The obituary also clearly fleshes out his life beyond the failed claim to Astatine, his position at the Bern Inselspital and his role in the Swiss governments efforts to protect the population from radioactivity (Strahlenschutz), which he led as the Director of "Sektion für Strahlenschutz" for 6 years. I would thus argue that merging with Astatine is not sufficient since he has notability beyond this episode. David Eppstein it is quite likely that we will not find reviews for his books online given the time he wrote them and the geographic context, so we may have to be more lenient here. I hope with this new evidence Double sharp, Sandstein and Uncle G could reconsider. --hroest 17:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That will be Gerhard Wagner (physicist) I expect. We basically have three groups of sources. The history of chemistry books all largely give the same as the one that I cited above. There are plenty of repetitions of largely the same biography, in conference proceedings and otherwise. This one that you have fleshes things out a bit. And Debus 1968, p. 1187 tells us things like wife (Hedwig Muller) and children (Markus, Christopher). In combination, I think that we can get a standalone article with rounded coverage of both life and work. There are multiple independent biographical sources, which there really weren't with just the history of chemistry books alone, as they seem to be all parrotting the same tale.
      • Debus, Allen G., ed. (1968). "MILLER, Walter". World Who's who in Science: A Biographical Dictionary of Notable Scientists from Antiquity to the Present. Marquis-Who's Who.
      • "MILLER, Walter". Who's who in Atoms. Vol. 2. Vallancey Press. 1969. p. 1057.
    • Uncle G (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the obituary Hannes Röst links to. Double sharp (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a good and intelligent start. The article needs expanding with a lot more explanation, but then that is beyond my scope. But anyway, my vote is keep. Greetings --Huligan0 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 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 Astatine#History. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helvetium

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

Not enough reliable and independent sources nor a content to exist as a seperated article. It'd be better and more suitable to merge with astatine. Nanahuatl (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 19 April 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. Overall, the discussion is on the fence leaning keep, but history has shown us that well established bands always end up with articles on their individual albums, and while the sourcing could be better, editors here have shown it does exist. It seems pointless to redirect when we all know that many sources will exist in a couple of weeks discussing the album, good or bad. That said, creating articles too soon can be problematic, as this proves. Where it is out of excitement or to get your name in the first edit slot, it generally isn't helpful and leads to AFDs like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blood in the Water (album)

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

Not notable yet, little more that a track listing. Noah 💬 17:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Noah 💬 17:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't completely think that last bit through. What I should have said is, no redirect from Blood in the Water (album) at all and prevent another article with that name from being created. (Is that possible?) If this article survives AfD, move it to Blood in the Water (Flotsam and Jetsam album) Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The previous two albums charted, satisfying WP:NALBUMS. The three preceding them didn't chart but were each reviewed two or three times, sneaking past the WP:GNG. The album before those merited just one brief review, failing WP:GNG but still more notable than this album about which nothing of substance has been said by a WP:RS. So no, not as notable as all the others. Two articles from a single website consisting of a paragraph lede followed by a press release is by no means "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Don't speculate, show us the sources. Yappy2bhere (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:1700:46B0:3CC0:9553:1F3:4ACF:E385: I know that it's accurate, what I'm saying is it isn't actually notable. Noah 💬 21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Accurate and confirmed?" Until the album is actually released it's merely WP:CRYSTAL. Yappy2bhere (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. WP:FUTUREALBUM says "satisfy the WP:GNG, and not before "title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". The latter isn't a substitute for satisfying WP:GNG but rather an additional constraint. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yappy2bhere, I've done a WP:BEFORE. The sources indicated by an IP user are additional constraints, while the ones I indicated, including Blabbermouth, definitely comply with WP:GNG and WP:FUTUREALBUM. I should know. I read them before posting them here. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the subject meet WP:GNG? A detailed source analysis instead of an assertion of meeting or not meeting a notability guideline is likely needed here for a consensus to form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per previous. Please focus discussion on whether the amount of source material available about this subject does or does not indicate that it would pass the GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it would be" and "will probably" is WP:CRYSTAL. The Blabbermouth coverage is trivial, as explained above--two press releases with a paragraph intro each. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concede to your point on the "crystal" standard for possible future reviews, but predicting that the article will be recreated is based on pure Wikipedia experience. I disagree with you on "trivial". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:51, 25 April 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. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and participating! Missvain (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IILM Academy of Higher Learning

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

A private, tertiary, degree non-awarding institution which has no inherent notability and does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. VV 07:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. VV 07:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 07:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. VV 07:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. VV 07:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 07:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:44, 19 April 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 03:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IILM College of Management Studies

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

A private, tertiary, degree non-awarding institution which has no inherent notability and does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. I have cleaned up the advertising cruft. VV 07:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. VV 07:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. VV 07:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 07:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 07:03, 19 April 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 Molkki. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyal Mahajan

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

Single significant role, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG criteria.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpur Institute of Management Studies

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

A private, tertiary, degree non-awarding institution which has no inherent notability and does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOLS as no WP:RS satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH was found with a WP:BEFORE. I have cleaned up the advertising cruft. VV 06:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. VV 06:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VV 06:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VV 06:55, 19 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morteza Javid

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

Non-notable Instagram figure, no coverage, no reviews, fails GNG. It should be speedy deleted. Mardetanha (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Surprisingly, he slandered me This Iranian user had no right to delete or poll Morteza Javid's page I have a lot of complaints about this user This user spoils my pages and slanders me with prior planning Of course, it is normal because this user is Iranian But it is not right for him to do so unintentionally against the rules of Wikipedia I ask Wikipedia to punish this user Morteza Javid's page was approved and encouraged several times by foreign users But some Iranian users spoil the pages unnecessarily. j l o (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I urge the central administration of Wikipedia to punish this tagged user He has slandered me a lot. I used to work on Avery BodyWiki and have registered more than 1000 pages in Avery BodyWiki However, because I once wrote an article on Persian Wikipedia, my article was deleted unnecessarily by Persian Wikipedia administrators. I beg the management of the English Wikipedia to ban the tagged user from working on Wikipedia for a few months because he slandered me. Thank you very very much Farhad Jalili j l o (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Christ, how many cites can you get out of the same press release? Could easily have been prodded. Vaticidalprophet 14:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a Guinness World Records mirror site; there are literally 60,000 current world record holders (plus hundreds of thousands of former record holders). We do have some articles on record holders but that's because those record holders are subject to significant coverage in multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources; citing the same press release reproduced on a dozen different websites doesn't confer notability in Wikipedia terms. ‑ Iridescent 14:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and the article is terrible, I quote "In 2020, he broke an Indian guy's record". --hroest 14:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if his daughter did bite your dog. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Non-notable. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion With special devotion to the service of esteemed users, please visit this website link, maybe your opinion will change.
    He is a famous Iranian.I just wanted to introduce you, dear users, to Morteza Javid Thank. Linda Lover (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he's that famous, then—as I've already told you—provide us with significant coverage in multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources to demonstrate this. And please stop creating sockpuppet accounts pretending to be multiple users; you're fooling nobody. ‑ Iridescent 07:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello Sir, you are wrong.You are hostile and very angry at Wikipedia and this is not right.I am of Iranian descent and was born in Poland. However, I currently live in Iran and Tehran. Your move is not correct user. Wikipedia is not a place for slander and anger. My field of study is IT engineering and I am a programmer and I work in WikiBeta and Ori Buddy wiki and another wiki and I am happy to start working in Wikipedia. Overall, I'm happy to write my first article on Wikipedia in English In 15 languages ​​of the world, due to my own aristocracy, I tried to learn most of the official languages ​​of the world because my father was fluent in 3 languages, Italian, Spanish and English. And this stream paves the way for good work on Wikipedia in other languages Thank you to all the Wikipedia users for their excellent activity.Linda Lover (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Jenner

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

Notability isn't inherited. Substantially fails general notability, i.e. none of the coverage is exclusive about him, but rather his family. As for his two businesses they also appear to be non-notable, unless I missed several major sources! PK650 (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mukedits (talk) 17:33, 19 April 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Cartographic Association

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

Two articles about organizations, making no claim to passing WP:NORG. As written, both articles literally just state that the organizations exist, and source their existence to their own self-published websites about themselves with no evidence whatsoever of any reliable source coverage about them to establish their significance. But simply being verifiable as existing is not how an organization gets a Wikipedia article -- to earn inclusion here, an organization needs to pass WP:ORGDEPTH on coverage about it in media. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep as a learned society they are both notable and they both publish one or multiple academic journals. Not a great situation with sources but we are more lenient with academics (which I presume extends to academic societies). --hroest 19:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had the impression that WP:ORG gives a break for national scholarly societies, but now I can only source this: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Maybe it's time to expand the org. notability guideline, otherwise 90% of existing articles in Category:Learned societies will have to go. I also found this related excerpt in WP:NACADEMIC: "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." fgnievinski (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was also going to mention the academic journals published by those societies. The journals pass WP:NJOURNALS since they have impact factors (criterion 1.c). But then I learned about WP:INHERITORG, which backfired. So maybe the articles about the societies should be merged into the articles about the respective journals? Again, I still think it'd be better to expand WP:ORG so that it reflects the usual lenience towards scholarly societies, especially the ones with national scope. Otherwise, I expect mass incineration in Category:Learned societies. fgnievinski (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fgnievinski I would support an expansion of WP:ORG mainly since it would reflect current practice. --hroest 14:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hroest thank you, I've started Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Proposal: learned societies. fgnievinski (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny Troia

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

Rejected at AFC but moved into mainspace by its creator anyway, this BLP stitches together works by the subject and quotes by him but entirely lacks in-depth coverage of him. It does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space system (gaming)

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

This topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. No hits in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Previously PROD'd in 2006. czar 04:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 04:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mark Hassman (29 March 2004). HSpace Tutorial (pdf) (Technical report).
  2. ^ Farady. "Building the Perfect MUSH". aresmuch.com. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
  3. ^ "Get In The Mush Pit". wcnews.com. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are unreliable. We wouldn't cite them in an encyclopedia. czar 03:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that you cite them. SailingInABathTub (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How would we mention "space system" in MUSH without citing reliable sources that discuss its relevance? czar 04:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see no point in redirecting this to MUSH as that article has not a single sentence on the topic. IceWelder [✉] 09:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This page seems to concern a fairly obscure concept of an already pretty obscure variation. I searched as well and couldn't find anything that would suggest this meets GNG. And I don't think a merge is really appropriate here given the lack of reliable independent sources to support the content that would be merged. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:52, 26 April 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Yaeger

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:VER. Abuse of WP:SELFPROMOTE. Yinglong999 (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator artist is notable. Thanks to Curiocurio for improving and verifying the article. Yinglong999 (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 19 April 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. Withdrawn by nominator; sole delete !vote also withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krysia Nowak

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

The has issues with WP:NBIO. It does have sourcing that strongly suggests notability, but when I started to dig into the sourcing, verification became a major issue. Let's take a look. 1) "Bowen, Denis (18 April 1975). "Krysia Nowak". Arts Review. 27 (8): 216." looks nice - like an academic journal - but I cannot verify such an article exists, all google hits are Wikipedia or its mirrors. The publications is so niche I cannot even locate its digitized table of contents online to confirm that this article exists. Same for "Bush, Aubrey (1 November 1974). "Margaret C Topham and Krysia D Nowak". Arts Review. 26 (22): 657." The only digital source that mentions this article is our article here. Strike two. 2) The World Who's Who of Women seems nice... the article cites the 1984 edition, which at least does exist. Google Books has snippet view for a newer, 1995 edition, and returns zero search results for her name from the book contents :( Strike three. 3) "Artists in Britain since 1945" - the book exists, but is not digitized as far as I can tell, so cannot verify that it covers the subject. Ditto for Debrett's Distinguished People of Today. WP:AGF is all nice and good, but after three verifications failed I am afraid it is hard to assume those sources exist :( 4) other sources cited seem even more niche and almost none are online and easy to verify outside [27] and [28], the latter however does not seem to even mention her; as for the former, I am not sure if www.artbiogs.co.uk is really reliable (about is "Artbiogs has been researched and produced by Geoff Hassell" - who is Geoff Hassell? Bottom line this source seems like "a website maintained by one person", WP:SPS?). I should also add that I did my own BEFORE and couldn't find any significant mention of her, even a sentence in passing, in Google Scholar or Books. I have minor concerns this could be a partial WP:HOAX, given verification failed or is very hard to carry out, as well as major concerns about whether the subject meets WP:NARTIST/NBIO/GNG. Let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As indicated at WP:PUBLISHED, sources that are available in print but not online are allowed. WorldCat lists 289 libraries worldwide that hold Arts Review; the fact that certain articles from that publication from the 1970s are not mentioned online doesn't suggest to me that the articles don't exist. It may be that the subject doesn't qualify as notable per WP:ARTIST, but I don't see anything here that looks like a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Metropolitan90, You are right about PUBLISHED, and probably right it is not a hoax, that said, when verification fails three times or so, it's a red flag that should be brought to community attention. This might be just the case of a dedicated editor having access to some rare databases or local libraries - at the same time, we had cases of mass hoax creations by others. They look the same, on the surface, so keeping in mind AGF, we need independent verification that those sources really exist and say what they do. Otherwise, we open ourselves to real hoaxes. Supplementary reading: Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia... PS. Just to repeat: I am not claiming this is a hoax, I am just saying that while the subject exists I wasn't able to verify more than this fact, and I also failed to verify that some of the key sources used here even exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:10, 19 April 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. leaning towards keep. I would note that we do not require "global" sources, just sources that are not purely local. I would suggest working in some of the sources provided herein to prevent this coming back to AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American IronHorse

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

This was a business with some coverage, but I don't see it as enough for an article. There is the possibility of an WP:ATD by merging to Textron, but I think that might throw off that article. Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment similarly to the HealthOne article, if largest custom... could be sourced, it would probably be notable. However, I hit a dead end then and haven't since found anything. StarM 14:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Box, Terry (2005-08-27). "Business Is Cruising for Custom Bikes". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "American IronHorse, a 10-year-old privately held company, is one of the nation's largest builders of 'manufactured' choppers and custom cruisers with 500 employees and revenue of $100 million last year. The company said it has had a 62 percent increase in sales this year. ... Harley-Davidson is still by far the biggest bike builder, with 329,000 sales expected this year. American IronHorse and Big Dog, the two largest builders of manufactured exotics, each sell 4,000 to 5,000 bikes annually, analysts estimate."

    2. Shlachter, Barry (2003-09-25). "Motorcycle maker announces layoffs". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "Overall, industry analyst Don Brown of Irvine, Calif., predicts that motorcycle sales will hit 901,400 units this year, up from 828,000 in 2002. IronHorse, he said, is in a very, very small niche custom market, producing fewer than 3,000 bikes, compared with nearly 300,000 Harley-Davidsons."

    3. Gopwani, Jewel (2001-09-01). "Success Found in a Slump - American IronHorse Has Built a Niche for Custom Motorcycles". The Telegraph. Knight Ridder. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "In its inaugural year, 1995, American IronHorse sold five motorcycles, all hand-built by Edmondson. Now the company has 172 employees and expects to produce 1,150 motorcycles this year, which is expected to bring in about $24 million. Helping add to those sales, American IronHorse has added 12 dealerships since January, for a total of 63 nationwide."

    4. Box, Terry (1999-05-29). "More room to cruise - FW maker of high-end motorcycles plans extensions". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "American IronHorse motorcycles - many of them cloaked in eye-popping red, blue and yellow paint - resemble big Harley-Davidsons with their polished V-twin engines and hot-rod exhaust notes. But they are more distinctive and have roughly twice as much horsepower as Harley-Davidsons, which for years has been the dominant manufacturer in the crowded cruiser segment."

    5. Shlachter, Barry (2008-05-08). "$6.7 million offered for American IronHorse". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "If Scott Meyers has his way this month, the long-haired, 54-year-old ex-defense industry executive will be the new majority owner of American IronHorse Motorcycle Co., the bankrupt maker of custom bikes that owes creditors $29 million. ... What's clear so far is that American IronHorse founder Bill Rucker, who was forced out in 2003, wants his company back."

    6. Andrews, Bill (1999-08-05). "Look-at-me Factor Is High on Powerful Thunder - American Ironhorse Has a Real Boulevard Burner in Its Chopper, but Amenities and Handling Are Pretty Poor". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "American IronHorse, based in Fort Worth, Texas, is one of those manufacturers that started building bikes back in 1994. By March of 1998, the company's operation was working off an assembly line. Soon the company will be moving from its 40,000-square-foot facility to a 225,000-square-foot facility producing more than 1,500 bikes a year. This custom motorcycle business is, to say the least, on an upswing."

    7. Shlachter, Barry (2008-03-05). "Creditors going after motorcycle company". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "Joe Delmont, a consultant to Power Products Marketing and a former contributing editor to Dealernews, a motorcycle-industry magazine, said IronHorse and other manufacturers, including industry leader Harley-Davidson, have fallen victim to a shaky economy. But he said IronHorse has also suffered from poor decision-making resulting from turnover in the executive suite. IronHorse has had four chief executives since investors removed the company's founder, Bill Rucker, in 2003."

    8. Box, Terry (2007-03-11). "Bike of the Year is from FW". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "One of American IronHorse Motorcycle Co.'s new hot-rod motorcycles has won the prestigious Bike of the Year award at the Cincinnati V-Twin Expo."

    9. Werner, Ben (2003-10-14). "Outside the Normal Cycle - Dealer Brings Custom American Ironhorse, Bourgets Choppers to the Region". Savannah Morning News. Archived from the original on 2021-04-19. Retrieved 2021-04-19.

      The article notes: "Both Ironhorse and Bourgets are considered boutique brands, a specialized product for a specialized customers. Annually, Ironhorse manufactures about 3,000 bikes. ... Ironhorse cuts its custom wheels from billet aluminum and manufactures its own motors."

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per additional sources provided by Cunard. Peter303x (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly the global coverage you would expect to establish notability for a manufacturer, which is the usual standard that applies to other manufacturing articles. All the references in the article are routine annoucements, which fail WP:NCORP. Looking at the references above, most which are again hyper-local to the area, furthest away in Savannah in Georgia. Taking each one in turn:
  1. Business is cruising "The fad is becoming a fixture," said Wil Garland, the chief executive of American IronHorse. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  2. Motorcycle annouces layoffs. This is a routine annoucement that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. "Our business has a seasonal flux to it," said B.W. Clark, IronHorse's senior vice president of manufacturing and engineering. Also fails WP:ORGIND.
  3. SUCCESS FOUND IN A SLUMP - AMERICAN IRONHORSE HAS BUILT A NICHE FOR CUSTOM MOTORCYCLES The Macon Telepgraph. People want to step out of that cookie cutter, Edmondson said Fails WP:ORGIND.
  4. More room to cruise - FW maker of high-end motorcycles plans extensions "We're a good one-and-a-half years ahead of our five-year plan," Mr. Edmondson said. "We had anticipated that most of our [41] dealers would take about 12 bikes a year. But we've got some who want 12 every other month." Fails WP:ORGIND
  5. $6.7 million offered for American IronHorse Routine annoucement, a press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  6. LOOK-AT-ME FACTOR IS HIGH ON POWERFUL THUNDER - AMERICAN IRONHORSE HAS A REAL BOULEVARD BURNER IN ITS CHOPPER, BUT AMENITIES AND HANDLING ARE PRETTY POOR. fter all, as Edmondson said, ``Most of our customers are just looking for a boulevard burner. It is a press release. Fails WP:ORGIND

References 7, 8, and 9 are of the same quality. Reference 9 which is a mixed article, discusses other manufactures, discusses the Ironhorse outlet. These are very poor references. The majority fail WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk

  • Comment: American IronHorse passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says:

    The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

    American IronHorse operated in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex in Texas. It received significant coverage in The Telegraph, a Macon, Georgia newspaper that is the third largest newspaper in Georgia. It received significant coverage in the regional Texas newspapers The Dallas Morning News and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

    That the sources included quotes from people affiliated with the company does not make the sources non-independent. The sources note that analysts have covered American IronHorse. The Dallas Morning News notes, "American IronHorse and Big Dog, the two largest builders of manufactured exotics, each sell 4,000 to 5,000 bikes annually, analysts estimate." The Fort Worth Star-Telegram quotes from industry analyst Don Brown of Irvine, California, "IronHorse, he said, is in a very, very small niche custom market, producing fewer than 3,000 bikes, compared with nearly 300,000 Harley-Davidsons."

    The Dallas Morning News has detailed commentary of American Ironhorse, "American IronHorse motorcycles - many of them cloaked in eye-popping red, blue and yellow paint - resemble big Harley-Davidsons with their polished V-twin engines and hot-rod exhaust notes. But they are more distinctive and have roughly twice as much horsepower as Harley-Davidsons, which for years has been the dominant manufacturer in the crowded cruiser segment."

    Cunard (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Victoria Advocate (Victoria, Texas) 09 Sep 2001, Sun Page 35 Custom motorcycle maker growing shows significant coverage of the company from its beginning to current. The Kansas City Star (Kansas City, Missouri) 27 Aug 2005, Sat Page 72 says they are one of the nation's largest builders of choppers and their annual revenue was for $100 million the previous year. Ample coverage of them found about. Dream Focus 16:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User Scope Creep makes several strong arguments for removal. Star7924 (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Baselios Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Kuttikanam

Mar Baselios Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Kuttikanam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources to establish notability. I thought that this [30] source found on doing WP:Before would be useful, but later understood that this is actually talking about Mar Baselios College of Engineering and Technology. Thus the subject fails GNG Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is split, however, this is a BLP without any sources, which is unacceptable for more than a short period of time and this article has been around over 15 years. Given there is no consensus to keep, and no independent coverage, I'm forced to default to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Aloi

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

Article doesn't give any reliable sources for notability Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was unable to find anything about this driver but my search was hindered by a few (well, at least two, its hard to say) other people by this name who are borderline notable. That said he definitely seems to meet the spirit (and even the letter) of WP:NMOTORSPORT, so I am not giving an opinion either way. A7V2 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A web search shows that there aren't any reliable sources in English accessible online, but forum posts do mention articles in magazines from the early 1990s covering Aloi (mostly Autosport). It may be worth checking whether or not the Aloi covered in this article is actually the same person as some of the other apparent Aloi's who appear in sources. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears I was a bit off with my initial assessment: certainly there is at least one other notable person by this name, so much so they have an article, Giovanni Aloi (art historian) (oddly not hatnoted from Giovanni Aloi, I will add this shortly). It would appear that if we keep this article, the art historian is the primary topic (failing that, there is no primary topic) so I'd say a move or two would be in order. As for the Aloi in question, I wasn't able to find any articles about him in the archives of motorsport magazine (through a search) but I did find a very short article on old racing cars. A7V2 (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The art historian does seem to play a large part in why searching for this Aloi is so difficult. I would agree that the art historian is probably the primary topic for this article title. This Aloi is strange in that he seems to have competed in what was essentially the top-tier of European single-seater racing (if we consider F1 to be a global rather than European series) and then vanished without leaving much of a trace on the Anglophone internet beyond stat database entries and forum posts. I don't know if it's possible to find the assistance of a user in Mexico who may be able to help find sources, and unfortunately during the pandemic finding such sources in libraries may be significantly harder. If anybody has back issues of Autosport from the early 1990s or those years' editions of Autocourse that may also provide something. If nothing came from that I would lean towards deleting the article as it's a largely unsourced WP:BLP. For what it's worth various reliable sources do at the very least establish that he existed, and the various forum posts where people referenced older sources which aren't available online about Aloi suggest that none of this article's contents are a hoax. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:03, 19 April 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 as nominator is withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Triangle, Los Angeles

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

This article is about an "informal name" for three neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Each of the articles regarding these three neighborhoods (Bel Air, Holmby Hills, and Beverly Hills) already discusses this "informal name" when talking about their respective neighborhoods. Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we don't need an article that concerns only the nickname, particularly given that the nickname is already discussed in the articles about the places themselves. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about ISBN 9780767932653, the entire book on the subject that was put forward at the last AFD discussion? Uncle G (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I don't follow. The last AFD (which took place roughly 8 years ago) concerned a challenge as to the notability of the subject matter and the lack of reliable sources. I'm not arguing that the nickname is made-up or not supported by reliable sources. My point is simply that it doesn't make sense to me to have a page dedicated solely to a place's nickname when said nickname is already discussed in the article about said place. And I think this position is exactly what WP:NOT#DICTIONARY is directed towards.
    • For example, searching for "Bean town" redirects to Boston, as it should. We don't have a separate page called Bean town for good reason, and I'm not sure why we'd want one. DocFreeman24 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, not that it matters but the book that you're referencing isn't about, say, the nickname itself or its origins or anything like that. It's just about people buying mansions in that area. So, I really struggle to see its relevance to this discussion. DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because you do not understand the very policy that you are waving. Go and read what Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says about the difference between a dictionary article and a stub encyclopaedia article, then the relevance of a book about the Platinum Triangle to an article whose subject is the Platinum Triangle should become more apparent. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to ignore the snarky comment on policy, which I really think misunderstands my position.

          But I think we should be clear on the book because what you are expressing is not accurate in my view. The book is not "about the Platinum Triangle" name as you suggest. The book, which is entitled "Unreal Estate: Money, Ambition, and the Lust For Land in Los Angeles", is about "sixteen great estates" constructed in the 20th century in four neighborhoods in Los Angeles (see the "Cast of Characters" introduction available at the "Look Inside" option on Amazon). One of those four neighborhoods (Beverly Park) isn't even part of the Platinum Triangle according to our article. And, based on what I can see through Google Books, the phrase appears a handful of times throughout the book with no meaningful discussion regarding the name itself. As far as I can tell there is, for example, zero discussion of where the name comes from, who coined it, when it came into use, how it has been used in popular culture, etc. If we're going to have a page exclusively about a nickname, then we need sources that tell us useful information about the nickname, not the area itself.

          Otherwise, as I have suggested throughout this discussion, the better course is to address the nickname in the pages regarding the neighborhoods themselves as is already the case. If there is such a plethora of information about the nickname itself that can support a standalone article (as is the case with, say, the Big Apple), then let's have the page then. But right now, it's a two-sentence stub with one cite and it's been that way since 2007. I'm not saying we can't have stub articles that define something. But at some point, we must acknowledge that not every "informal name", as the article calls it, should have its own standalone page. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          • You clearly do not understand the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. Go and read it! It tells you that encyclopaedia articles are about the people/events/concepts/places/things that their titles denote. Dismissing a book about the place out of hand because it doesn't tell you the coinage of the name is absurd. Sources about the area are exactly what are needed. An entire book about the area in an article that is about an area would appear to be precisely on point, and this book tells you that it is about the area, explicitly naming it, on the first page of its introduction. It tells you that "movie and TV people were latecomers to the Platinum Triangle". It tells you that it is a "distinct psycho-geographic unit". It tells you that it isn't the shape of a triangle but "looks more like a broccoli flower". It tells you that the Triangle's founding fathers "were descendants of fur trappers, Forty-niners, railroad builders, ranchers, and oilmen", and that the Kitchen Cabinet were "all Platinum Triangle residents". And this is only getting partway through the Introduction. Go and read the policy and the book. Uncle G (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You say "it's a two-sentence stub with one cite and it's been that way since 2007." That is not exactly correct. Yes, it is a two-sentence stub - now. But when the previous AfD was closed as “keep” in 2013, it was expanded to a reasonable “start class” article with four references.[31] A month later an IP stripped it back down to a two sentence stub. That butchering of the article was in effect an overturning of the original AfD. I'm going to restore the version that was kept at the previous discussion, and THEN we can talk about whether to delete it or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @DocFreeman24: Please take another look at the article and re-evaluate its status. It is now back to the version that was kept in 2013 but stripped down a month later. It is no longer "just a definition" but includes published information about the neighborhood itself and five references including a book specifically about it. The fact that it is mentioned in other articles is not a reason why it shouldn't be an article in itself; most Wikipedia article subjects are mentioned in other articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I checked several versions in connection with this nomination but didn't see this more expanded version. I'll withdraw the nomination since I think this version is a much closer call. DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 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 04:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Pistol

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

Fails WP:CRIMINAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:48, 19 April 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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. Relisting appears to be of no value, as the discussion has been dormant for over a week, despite a second relisting (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Ross

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

An unnotable fashion designer and creative director. Sliekid (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "A-Cold-Wall*'s Samuel Ross: 'Streetwear used to be a class thing'". the Guardian.
  2. ^ "A-COLD-WALL*'s Samuel Ross: "Reconstructing the identity of Britishness is happening in real time"". i-D.
  3. ^ "Samuel Ross, Designer Of A-Cold-Wall*, Talks Streetwear And Breaking Down Social Barriers". British Vogue.
  4. ^ "Samuel Ross and Virgil Abloh on the power of mentorship". British GQ.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:35, 11 April 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) 03:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 01:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visionland (album)

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

Article on album that does not pass WP:NALBUM. Redirect to YBN Nahmir not accepted by creator but I think that would be a good outcome, Mccapra (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:13, 11 April 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) 03:13, 19 April 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) Lennart97 (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Les Shelleys (album)

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM. There's an AllMusic review but I can't find any other significant coverage or other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Coverage isn't that much, but aside from the AllMusic review, I also found a few reliable sources about the album: [40], [41] and [42]. That said, while the article needs a little clean-up, it's good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Superastig: Thanks for the input! I missed the first one, Paste is definitely reliable. But are the other two? [2] seems to be one guy (correction: not just one guy, the review was written by someone else; but who this author is, and whether he has any credentials, is unclear), selling audio equipment and writing reviews on the side, so almost certainly not reliable as far as I can see. I find it hard to determine what exactly [3] is, mostly because clicking any link on that website brings me to some spam/scam site, but in any case I can't find information about the website indicating that it's a reliable source. So unless I'm wrong about these two, the notability is still very borderline at best. Lennart97 (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the two individually notable artists working on it. Just like Lennary97, I also get redirected to a spam site by the More Than Music link and therefore do not think it to be a reliable source (if it were, it wouldn't hijack you like that). A search for "les shelleys" "tom brosseau" on World Radio History (which hosts multiple music magazines from around the world) turned up no results, and of the ten results on newspapers.com for the same search query, all but one was just a rehash of the same one-sentence blurb of them performing at a concert. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The third link I posted redirected me to a spam website. Luckily, I was able to get the cached version of it: [43]. I also found a few more reliable sources which talk about the album: [44], [45] and listicle [46]. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:54, 18 April 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) 03:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Although the player fails NFOOTBALL, the consensus is that the present sources are giving enough in-depth coverage to make the subject pass general GNG criteria (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Swancott

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WPNFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The brief responses above make it unclear whether the other contributors have considered such sources at all. Macosal (talk) 00:18, 16 April 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) 03:11, 19 April 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. Any concerns regarding lists of live performances can be discussed at WT:MUSIC. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taylor Swift live performances

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

While Ms. Taylor Swift is one of the biggest names in contemporary music, this list comes off as WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT. Apart from the massive stadium tours with millions of dollars grossed, I do not see how trivial matters, like performances on awards shows and television, are necessary. This is not a fanwiki to begin with, and this level of detail is hard to justify "notability". A "List of Taylor Swift concert tours" may be more appropriate, but that is another issue-- HĐ (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had a discussion (coincidentally) with HĐ on a featured article nomination for a Meghan Trainor song about the inclusion of sales figure of a week being indiscriminate. I asked why chart peaks and certifications weren't considered the same, and the response was "they simply summarize the most vital details i.e. chart positions, certifications that an album or a song received." So if being "vital" is the criteria for the inclusion of information that, if not vital, would be fancruft, then let me ask. What's so vital about having a list like List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift? A majority of the tracks aren't notable on their own to have articles, and have even less coverage than the WP:ONEVENT reliable sources the live performances listed here have. Looks like something that would only belong on the Taylor Swift wiki, IMO. What is so vital about lists of publication accolades in List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift, since only those publications have published the lists themselves, which are not covered by any other source?
MarioSoulTruthFan argued, "The live performances are irrelevant since artists like Taylor Swift and others of the same status have more opportunities to perform at award shows and other TV appearances." Yeah, in the same way a list of artist's Grammies and MTV Awards are irrelevant since Swift and others as popular as her have elite opportunities for winning and getting nominated for Grammies and MTV awards, but where are the deletion discussions for those? I mean, seriously, many of these freeking award shows are just patting-on-the-back-of-each-other for the elite class.
The point is, there are so many things to consider when determining fancruft-ness when almost ALL of the performances on are morning shows, awards shows, football stadiums, radio shows, and events as imposed onto the world's conscious as Time 100 Gala, the CMA Awards, the Grammy awards, Billboard Music Awards, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Saturday Night Live, NFL games, the Tiny Desk Concert show, and I'm only scratching the surface. If this was just a list of live performances at local venues and areas barely anyone to no-one has ever heard of (even if the artist was notable), I would vote to explode it in a million pieces. But that is not the case here.
Furthermore, HĐ, how do you know fans of Swift will be the only ones interested in this article? Have you done surveys of readers on what topics they would be interested in? Are you a mind reader? I strongly doubt it. I also think only Swift fans (or maaaaaaaybe chart enthusiasts) would be the only ones interested in finding all the chart positions and certifications listed in the discography lists of Swift, or be interested in every song Swift has recorded, but I don't know. I can't know, cause there's 7 billion on this planet and a lot of them are too shy to reveal who they are and what they think.
I don't say any of this to question the motives of the nominator, since that would be bad faith. I'm saying all of this because the use of the descriptor fancruft is extremely prone to fall on WP:CRYSTALBALL-ism. It is stated on WP:INDISCRIMINATE that info with only a small fanbase, even if there are HQ reliable sources used, aren't allowed, and on the essay on fancruft, it states in that these situations, "the general focus of the discussion should be What Wikipedia is not (importance conveyed by sources) rather than WP:Notability (coverage by sources)."
So here's the conclusion based on this: All live performance articles are deletable for being nothing more than a database (WP:NOTDATABASE) of live performances on events extremely difficult to get the opportunity to perform on, in the same way discography and awards lists are deletable for being databases on charts just as hard to enter, certifications and sales just as hard to obtain, and high-tier awards just as hard to win, be nominated for, or even be on a shortlist for. All of this is true because we are not a database of events and stats. There are probably other places than a deletion discussion for one article to discuss a topic as widespread as artists' lists, but that's the point I'm making for this discussion for now. If you're going to delete it, delete all those other non-encyclopedic pages editors have accepted for so long. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My vote still remains.
That's true, artists like Swift and others are more inclined to win VMA's, AMA's and whatsoever...more than the grunge rock band of yesterday and you know why? Popularity. However, and I'm not defending any kind of award shows, they are just a popularity contest and a case of "if you scratch my back I scratch yours", like you said. If you are going down that path then the emmys, golden globes and many others should be deleted and believe me you don't want to go down that route. Moreover, charts have neer been easier to entry, you don't even need a record deal to do so look at Macklemore, Lil Nas X, 69 and many others, they had hits before being signed by labels and even if that wasn't enough, just look at those "genre" charts divided in airplay, sales, streams and whatsoever, just making it easier. Sales are "dying", some claim they are already "dead" and certifications are easier to get, the next certification of a song is just a stream away. If they were't easy you wouldn't have albums that almost every song had been certified at least gold.
Regarding this kind of "live performances" pages should all be NUKED, even if they are FA's which in the first place raised a lot of eyebrows (Yes I saw that discussion) and some people deemed as unecessary and still passed somehow, withouth those concerns properly address. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, there are areas on Wikipedia to debate the importance or fancruftness of aspects of the music industry other than Afd (like the talk of Wikiproject Music perhaps), but to keep it short as someone who researches the industry and charts a lot more and as someone who would like all of society to make correctly-informed decisions and votes, charts (and I'm talking official charts, not your average retailer or bootleg website chart) have never been HARDER, and I mean BATTLETOADS HARD, to enter: your understanding of the modern charts and certifications has a heavy amount of survivorship bias; there are like 60,000,000 artists doing what Lil Nas X and Macklemore, and you only notice like 60 of them make it. The increased market saturation, the result of the ease of access of making and posting music, only adds more significance to those seemingly-instant and only-took-a-click certifications and chart positions. Even genre, vinyl, and heatseeker-only genres are a bitch to make it in because of the amount of songs that get released and posted in each genre.
Also, let's just get this out of the way. Only the big stars in rap and pop (especially rap) have been able to do what Canadian Youtube critic Mark Grondin of Spectrum Pulse terms "album bombs", the instances of "albums that almost every song had been certified at least gold" MarioSoulTruthFan referred to. You don't see that with even the most well-known independent acts.
I'd also make a recommendation for a full discuss with the community elsewhere (like I said, on Wikiproject Music perhaps) to discuss whether to have live performance articles, and to Draftify all the live performance articles because WP:Consensus can change and we may change our minds. If I'm to inductively reason, I think most music article editors (even experienced ones) think discography articles are less fancrufty than live performance lists simply because they encounter and work on those way more and encounter live performance articles less. But there I go being a crystal ball on people's mind, again. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I will talk about this, because like you pointed out this is a topic for wikiproject music and we just have to simply vote Keep or Delete here. To begin with, I never talked about "bootleg charts", so I'm not sure where you are coming from with that. You mean they have never been easier, correct? Your argument is quite flawed since it can go both aways. Back then you only make it with having a record deal, nowadays you can reach to the top spot of a chart with no record deal, anyone can upload their music to streaming and digital services. Not everyone will make it, it is impossible but artist like the ones I referenced sticked out like a sore thumb and to some extend they made it, due to timing, music, memes and other stuff.
However, what was I commentating was regarding artists like Swift and so many others that almost every song in the album has been certified gold. Not the average joe who just released a song. I'm sure that person is not a reliable source, but whatever. Something else you should bare in mind is that you are going for too much right now; its the live performances, the awards and the discographies. Take it easy and focus your energies on one thing at a time. You have good points to start that discussion over there. Not because they work harder on the discographies, simply because there is a wikiproject on that, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to talk about this elsewhere, so I'll also comment on this for the last time in this discussion. I brought up the charts to make the comparisons to live performances, awards, and discographies. I didn't take any tangent, trust me. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I think we do need to have a wider discussion as to whether live performance, award, discography, and list of songs articles should be deleted or not, and I'm not comfortable deleting some but not all of a certain type (e.g. the List of live performances series) of page, as that would get confusing, quick. Like Johnnyboytoy said, I'm not against the page being deleted, but all the other "List of live performances" pages need to be deleted as well. That is why I suggest having a wider discussion, maybe on WT:MUSIC, WT:SONGS or WT:ALBUMS, on this topic before turning to deletion. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 15:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not see how a list of concert tours that grossed almost $1 billion is "fancruft". If the other parts are, then there should be a consensus on the talk page to remove them—not delete the whole page. More context could be provided with a paragraph above each of the tables perhaps. I would also dispute the "fancruft" notion; I don't regularly listen to Swift but this list allows me to understand trends in her career, what songs received more promotion, which countries were focused on, etc. Heartfox (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reliably sourced list which I found useful. Neutral wording is used and objective facts are stated, so it didn't strike me as fancruft. Unless precedent is established to delete all such lists, this one shouldn't be.--NØ 12:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. It would be better to hold a larger discussion about lists of live performances as a whole so a general consensus can be reached about all of them. I do not necessarily view this as either fancruft or an indiscriminate list, but I can understand the concern about it. I just think this is better suited for a larger discussion about these lists as a group rather than doing it individually. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 26 April 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 Two and a Half Men. However, List of Two and a Half Men characters#Alan Harper seems to be better here. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men)

Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION. The article is pure plot summary, +OR on running gags, and is pretty much unreferenced. Some parts like the long and unreferenced section on masturbation seem like hoax. Or trivia. BEFORE failed to find any substantive coverage (a mention in passing or plot summary here or there, although there is a chapter about him in a Bachelor Thesis here [47]). The other academic mentions are, as noted, in passing - maybe one or two sentences here, half a sentence here, same for books... IF this is kept, the entire ORish/HOAXish 'running gags' section needs to go (which would leave us with nothing but a long plot summary). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:30, 19 April 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 04:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio de San Bartolome de Novaliches

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a few trivial name drops in school listings, but that's about it. Nothing exists that would make this pass either WP:GNG or more importantly since it's a private school WP:NORG. I'm willing to change my "vote" to keep if someone can find WP:THREE in-depth, independent references about it though. Since it's possible, but highly doubtful, that I just missed them. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del per nom. The article only has one source which isn't easily verifiable, "Colegio de San Bartolome de Novaliches Manual for Students. 2005." Seems to be a printed source (student's manual), which is a self-published reference and not a WP:Reliable source. On top of that the article has implicit promotional tone, seen at the section "Courses". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:32, 19 April 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 04:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Britesparks International School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all that comes up for this is some trivial name drops in school directory and a couple of news articles about the most expensive schools in the Philippines. Plus, the references in the article are all primary. So nothing about this passes the notability standards of WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:22, 25 April 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 04:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bannister Academy

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:15, 19 April 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 04:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mozaffarabad, Bardsir

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "119172" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, clicking on the "coordinates" in the article and taking a look thru gmaps (see here) there does appear to be some sort of settlement there. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really need to read the background hyperlinked in the nomination. The problem is that all of these things, thousands of them, have been labelled "village". They're one-fact articles and the problem with that fact is that it's a misinterpretation of the database that was used, and is not actually true. The very first question to answer is a fundamental one: What kind of settlement? We've found motorized water pumps, farms, wells, industrial estates, and more besides; none of which are villages. The only reason that this isn't gone already is that someone added an external hyperlink to one of those WWW sites that generates information algorithmically. (Hooray! This "city" is over a megametre from the nearest hotel.) Otherwise it would have been in another section of User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of an actual "village" here.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Contrary to Coolabahapple's apparent point (and please forgive me if I am misinterpreting Coola), whilst Wikipedia has features of a gazeteer, it is not a gazeteer per se. This means that unlike, say, GNIS, or the National Land and Property Gazetteer it is not a collection of place-names and addresses regardless of notability. Evidence of some kind of settlement at the location is not proof that we should have an article about it. In this case we have data from the Iranian census (that does not only record populated places, and does not only record populations by village/town/city but also at work-places/farms/pumps/households) and some buildings at the location on GMaps (that appears to be a farm).
Even if this is a populated place, there is no evidence that it is a legally-recognised populated place as required by WP:GEOLAND. For example some evidence of incorporation or local administration might show this, but there is none. Alternatively two instances of significant coverage in reliable sources would be enough to clear WP:GNG, but again there is no such coverage in reliable sources.
Finally, GMaps mirrors data from Wikipedia as well as sources we know to be unreliable (e.g., GNIS) and is therefore itself an unreliable source. FOARP (talk) 12:21, 20 April 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 04:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Scent of Joseph's Shirt

The Scent of Joseph's Shirt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the presented sources review the film. Sources from user generated movie databases are not enough to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:NFILM

PROD removed without explanation by unregistered user. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 19 April 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 04:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Higgins Junior High School

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

Non-notable primary school that has been unsourced since 2006. I am not finding any independent coverage whatsoever. Heck, I am not finding any coverage at all. I would normally suggest redirecting the page, but I do not know what to redirect it too. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 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 04:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:LISTN, just like the freshly Afd'd Maine in popular culture. (Also, the claim that RI is popular in culture partly due to the Farrelly brothers and Seth MacFarlane is rather dubious.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_April_19&oldid=1021229281"