Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 24

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOBRO Marine, Inc. (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:NCORP. No indication of being notable as a shipyard. scope_creep^Talk 17:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that the creator has been indeffed for running a massive spamsock farm. --Blablubbs|talk 17:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Unblocked again, not sure what happened there. --Blablubbs|talk 13:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal Agha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject lacks references which demonstrate the significant coverage criteria of WP:GNG. Admittedly, there may be foreign language references available that other wikipedians may be able to find that are unavailable to me. Currently fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:NACTOR. Was a notable actor. Worked on 100+ films. RationalPuff (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RationalPuff From what I can tell, his roles were minor and not "significant" in just spot checking. He wasn't a leading actor. Just working in a bunch of movies doesn't automatically pass WP:NACTOR. You can demonstrate that they were significant by finding reviews that actually review his performance.4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to clean and improve the article. Added several reliable sources. These should be enough to demonstrate WP:ACTOR. Other willing editors may wish to improve this further. RationalPuff (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He may not have played leading roles but was a notable supporting actor and the article has enough references in it to keep it notable.Shakirfan (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay KR Singh (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 was deleted under A7 some time ago but there is a dubious claim to significant, which is why I'm bringing this here. Of the sources on the article, only No. 3 seems to mention him in any depth, not enough for notability under WP:GNG. I have not found substantial coverage of him and I'm unconvinced that, if coverage were to surface, he would be independently notable from the band. The article is also an autobiography. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Facts are independently verified and sources are authenticated, band and other wiki also have references of same article author. There’s no content of self promotion, page is not eligible for deletation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.36.125 (talk • contribs) — 223.225.36.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Checked: Proof exists no deletion requires — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.36.125 (talk) 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Outside of his own Linkedin and social media profiles, I can only find him mentioned very briefly in a few reports about the group Nizami Bandhu. Also, calling him a "member" of that group is misleading because he is their musical director and manager. His involvement with the group is mentioned at their article and that is sufficient. I can find no other evidence of notability in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No Delete updated director instead of member, found him on music app and few YouTube music videos of Nooran Sisters and Nizami Bandhu and he’s also on some news portal for social worker. He’s Notable person but not only in music, found a few news links in Hindi and English.

• https://haryana.punjabkesari.in/haryana/news/social-worker-became-angel-for-needy-in-difficult-times-1385945
• https://www.updainikbhaskar.com/state/delhi/in-the-difficult-times-of-the-corona-epidemic-akshay-became-an-angel-for-the-needy/
• https://bhnnews.com/state/akshay-kr-singh-helping-people-during-covid-19-pandemic/?amp
• https://wap.business-standard.com/article-amp/news-ians/rajpal-yadav-to-endorse-celebration-management-company-116121600618_1.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.38.197 (talk) 27 June 2021 (UTC) — 223.225.38.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete I've reviewed the new sources proposed, and I'm less than convinced regarding the independence/reliability of punjabkesari and updainikhaskar. While I cannot read Hindi, there appear to be sentences that are verbatim repeated between the two sources, such as हऐसे कठिन समय में कई स्थानीय कलाकार ऐसे भी है जो एक समय का भोजन तक नहीं ले सकते हैं।, which machine-translates to In such difficult times, there are many local artists who cannot even take a single meal. There are other issues of extremely close paraphrasing/direct copying throughout the two documents, and अक्षय केआर सिंह ऐसे लोगों के लिए भोजन उपलब्ध करवा रहें है और अब उनकी यह सेवा केवल स्थानीय लोगों या कलाकारों तक सीमित नहीं, बल्कि वह शहर के 700 से अधिक जरूरतमंद लोगों तक, which machine translates to Akshay KR Singh is providing food for such people and now his service is not limited to only local people or artists, but he is reaching more than 700 needy people of the city. To me, it seems likely that these are related to some PR campaign, since it is extremely odd for an article to be written with similarities of that length. I'm unsure about the quality of the BHN source, though the company that runs it appears to be about one year old (and its contact email being newsbhn2020@gmail.com doesn't spur confidence in it being a longstanding company with a reputation for fact-checking and excellence). The source from the Business-Standard gives only a trivial mention of Singh. I concur with Modussiccandi regarding the sources on the page. As I'm not able to identify multiple, in-depth reliable sources that are independent from the source, I'm inclined to delete the page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ambedkar Student Front of India (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 political entity almost certainly fails WP:NORG. I searched for sources on Google, but got only namedrops in articles wholly unrelated to this organization. I'm surprised this page was patrolled in 2019 at NPP, when it should have been brought here at AfD. JavaHurricane 12:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 12:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 12:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Leading organisation in India representing Dalit students. In cases such as these, a BEFORE analysis should include searches in the appropriate local language(s). RS exists in Hindi; passes the GNG.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did a search myself but don't see anything that would satisfy WP:GNG. I also note that the creator with apparent COI was blocked for sockpupptery. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. The above sources which mostly concern some other subject only make passing mention of this non-notable organization. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gervase Markham (programmer) (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:NOTAMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is notable. He contributed to this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=G6ybAgAAQBAJ He is cited in the IEEE Xplore: ISBN 9-780-76952304-0. Actually, almost every other book about Mozilla mentions the subject. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That book mentions him exactly twice in passing, and not even on "real" pages (xv and xvi). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Being one of 37 people listed as having contributed hacks, writing or inspiration to a book and being cited once are both way short of any notability standard. And why, if he is covered by almost every other book about Mozilla, does Google Books only find that mention and a nine-word long quote from the subject in the apparently self-published "How To Build Massive Subscriber, Membership and Social Media Lists" by Marc Charles, which appears not to even rise to the level of having an ISBN? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google books lists many mentions: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Gervase+Markham%22+Mozilla There are at least 6 matches on the first page. Anyway, not notable people are not cited by the IEEE. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I make it five mentions, and none goes beyond the simple fact that the subject worked for Mozilla. And if you want to get into citations, for which WP:PROF#C1 is the guideline, typically people who work in computer science need to have thousands of them before they are even considered to be possibly notable, not one. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You counted 5 mentions because the 6th book doesn't mention the subject and you assumed that the rest of the list doesn't either. If you keep scrolling you'll find more. If you really think that somebody needs thousands of citations in scientific journals, then why everybody knows Nicklaus Wirth, Richad Stallman, Donald Knuth? I know people who published dozens of computer science books and were never cited by the IEEE. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because those people (if you spell their names correctly) do have thousands of citations to their work. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found this through the academics deletion sorting list, but for this sort of subject, academic notability is not really an option (because scholarly writing is not what he did, so it's unsurprising that he doesn't meet any criterion of a notability guideline based on that). The only reasonable option is WP:GNG. But the only thing we have in the article that looks like a published source about Markham is the Dr. Dobbs interview. There are some editors who think interviews shouldn't count for notability at all — I tend to disagree, but we should only count them when they go into some depth about the subject, rather than focusing on other topics, and this one is the kind of interview that's primarily about some other topic. It's also only one source and we need multiple sources. The passing mentions in books discussed above also don't add anything to the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak keep. borderline GNG, the main issue is that the article does not clearly state the subjects claim to notability (instead talks about ancestry and him being the youngest employee at a company which does not qualify for notability). After reading the article, I am still not clear what the author really *did* that was notable, his role at Bugzilla should be more clearly elaborated in the article. On the other hand, Contributing to a book is not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. There is the German obituary on a probably notable site, there is the Dr Dobbs interview and the O'Reilly Open Source Award award which together make this a rather weak keep. --hroest 18:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I also found this mention on LWN one of the leading open source outlets. I think overall there was enough coverage the substantiate the fact that he was an important contributor to Mozilla and Bugzilla and the community in general. --hroest

• I'm afraid I don't see how any of those qualifies as significant coverage in an independent reliable source. As regards the first, we seem to have many editors who don't even consider an obituary in The New York Times or The Daily Telegraph to be sufficient for notability, so one at a niche Linux web site would certainly not clear the bar. The Dr Dobbs interview is exactly that, an interview. I can't see any evidence that the award gets anywhere near WP:ANYBIO (once again, we even have people claiming that a knighthood is not enough). The LWN source just seems to consist of forum posts. Are you sure that you are not promoting systemic bias here in favour of people who work in the software industry, specifically those involved in open source projects? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources are not in depth enough to establish notability, and the subject does not appear to meet the criteria as an author, academic, etc. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The article has been around since 2006 and isn't really any less notable than most of the other members of Category:Mozilla_people or Category:Mozilla_developers. In fact, Markham's article is linked to by more articles than some of them, so there's certainly an opportunity to add more content. The work he did regarding browser PKI governance alone was fairly notable (even if it isn't well-known). It's possible that notability guidelines might need to be written for programmers and technologists, because most of them can't quite be compared to academics or creative professionals. dma (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per the conversation above, the sources cited are nothing more than passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Adams (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP that does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NPOL, GNG at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 15:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mayors of cities that at present have a population of 54,000 are rarely notable, especially when the city is part of a sprawling urban county connected to a major metropolitan area as Prince Georges County Maryland is. Nothing here indicates that Adams is an exception to this general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NPOL Suonii180 (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Mayors are not deemed automatically notable just because they exist, and as yet unelected candidates for state-level office don't get articles just for being candidates either. He would have to win the state comptroller election in November 2022, not just stand as a candidate in it, to stake his notability on the state comptroller position — but the notability of mayors is also not established just by single-sourcing their existence as mayors, but by writing and sourcing substantive content about the significance of his mayoralty: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. And no, "first [insert underrepresented group here] to serve as mayor of his own town" isn't an instant notability freebie either. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pandya Store. Will also protect per disruption concerns. Daniel (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Kharodia (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 article about an actor does not meet WP:NACTOR. A before search finds a couple of minor gossip column mentions of his forthcoming marriage, but nothing to indicate he is particularly notable. Prod removed, so taking to AfD. Laplorfill (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect and protect article: WP:TOOSOON, does not meet WP:NACTOR, article isn't source, but a quick google searching didn't turn up anything with significant coverage Ravensfire (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: please reconsider this nomination for deletion. It would have been far simpler to revert to the prior redirect. In the absence of the nominator's reconsideration, my firm opinion is to revert to prior redirect Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh. Too late. Now we have to go through this unnecessary process, since we have a delete opinion, so a withdrawal is no longer possible. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We also have an active sockpuppet edit warring to undo the redirect, and this will likely continue (as it has in the past). A clear decision at AfD will allow the option of CSD G4 if needed. So I disagree that this is unnecessary. Laplorfill (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That is what WP:RPP is for, and WP:SPI but it is running now and will do what it will do Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pandya Store per Timtrent, and protect to prevent further socky disruption. Pinging Ravensfire to see whether they would consider that an acceptable solution. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that would be an ideal situation and have edited my comment accordingly. Ravensfire (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an unsourced article on a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pandya Store. Restoration and protection of the redirect appears to be the more appropriate thing to do. The coverage he does have doesn't meet WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute hot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PRODded by Quondum (talk · contribs) as a neologism originating in a NOVA epsiode that fails WP:NEO, and does not appear elsewhere. The deprodder, Jackattack1597 (talk · contribs), did not provide any sources that prove notability. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Absolute_hot.

The content is entirely about two different topics (Planck temperature and Hagedorn temperature) discussed separately, so it may fail WP:SYNTH as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a poorly sourced neologism. It might become a notable term at some point, but definitely isn't at this point judging from how few sources there are for the term. SamStrongTalks (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a borderline case, but I deprodded it because I could find another reliable source mentioning the term ( This BBC infographic , which not only mentions it but includes it in the "headline" of the infographic. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utterly failing WP:GNG: extremely few sources, none of them reliable, and then no more than an unscientific mention (the BBC link given by Jackattack1597 being an example). An exemplar of what does not belong in WP. —Quondum 00:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC is a reliable source. A 'scientific' term doesn't have to be used scientifically to be considered notable, especially if it's been used by an influential source. Borderline keep. --jftsang 16:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cruft. Simple cruft. It's a non-notable neologism with passing mentions in gray-area-or-worse "references". None of the few items that searching has turned up constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. ("Futurism" is a schlock website for sensationalism, ScienceAlert is an aggregator that was literally just reposting an infographic that doesn't itself give a source for the term, etc.) These are the kind of marginal-to-outright-garbage "references" that might have just copied from Wikipedia themselves. Passing mentions in pop science aren't the kind of material we need to base an encyclopedia article upon. We don't need an article for a synonym for Planck temperature that scientists don't actually use. Actual scientific terminology has a far stronger presence than a pop-science infographic that doesn't even say where it got the term from. Headlines are not reliable sources, and for practical purposes, infographics are all headline. There are isolated cases where a topic becomes wiki-notable because the pop-science coverage was so intense that it overcame a dearth of peer-reviewed literature, but this is not one of them. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SYNTH of two totally different concepts that are covered in their own separate articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per "adding two not notable topics does not make one notable" (WP:SYNTH). Cinadon36 10:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks any good source. It would be interesting if "absolute hot" were a thing, but it just isn't. The actual scientific concepts are Planck temperature and Hagedorn temperature, and joining them like this is WP:SYNTH as others have pointed out. Tercer (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cowen (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. Created by a new account who is apparently an WP:UPE (calls the subject Alan in edit summaries). Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject has one highly cited paper, but this is what I understand to be an extremely high citation field. I'm not seeing it as meeting WP:NPROF C1; indeed, it would be unusual if a 2019 PhD met NPROF. No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (after edit conflict) Here is the subject's Google Scholar profile. The figures are not enough to give a pass of WP:PROF#C1 in these highly cited fields, and in particular I note that the article in Nature, which was cited in support of notability, has only attracted 15 citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Phil Bridger: Could you please clarify your remarks by "Comment", "Keep", or "Delete"?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I believe that this is not a vote, and putting "Comment" before a comment is simply condescending in the extreme. Everything said here is obviously a comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete way to early in his career to meet academic notability under almost any circumstances, and he has not published some work that was so groundbreaking it gave him permannent notability all on its own, so he is not yet notable. Maybe in a few decades, but not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way TOOSOON. I looked at his 17 coauthors and the 32 most recent coauthors of his 2 most frequent collaborators (cutoff of 5+ papers).

Total citations: avg: 5318, median: 2322, Cowen: 373.

Total papers: avg: 84, med: 63, C: 17.

h-index: avg: 26, med: 22, C: 10.

Top citations: 1st: avg: 722, med: 378, C: 136. 2nd: avg: 372, med: 210, C: 59. 3rd: avg: 280, med: 157, C: 43. 4th: avg: 218, med: 133, C: 24. 5th: avg: 199, med: 114, C: 21.

Top first-author: avg: 511, med: 225, C: 136.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 16:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree this is UPE, and have blocked the author for it. This is not a good faith effort at writing an encyclopedia article. MER-C 13:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of whether this is UPE, we don't have enough evidence for WP:PROF or other forms of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mark Rainey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Unable to locate any reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have found nothing to substantiate the notability of this person other than a short mention in Asimov's SciFi magazine. The article sourcing is extremely weak: sales sites (Amazon, Crossroads), blogs, user-submitted sites (Goodreads, IMDb). Does not pass WP:GNG, nor the notability criteria mentioned in th nomination. Netherzone (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" !vote is not policy-based. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Class Schools Quality Mark (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 is about a UK charity, which awards the title of "World Class School" to UK schools that meet their requirements, but I don't believe that the subject of the article passes WP:NCORP. The article is currently supported entirely by the charity's listing in the UK Charity Commission register (primary), and the charity's website (affiliated). I searched for better sourcing, but found nothing that was independent, secondary and reliable. There are lots of hits from websites that have been awarded its 'World Class School' status (affiliated), and lots of obvious press releases in the local newspapers covering the fact that a local school has been awarded the status (affiliated), but that's about it. The best I found was this article, which is published by a magazine which describes itself as being "written by teachers, for teachers", and is distributed free to secondary schools in the UK (unreliable). Note that searching for sources is somewhat tricky: the phrase "world class schools" is very generic, and comes up in all sorts of obviously reliable scholarly sources; none of them, as far as I can tell, are about this particular entity, they are all about the much more general concept of a world class school. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article solely because of a number of articles about schools which claimed this award, and thought that Wikipedia would want to know more about it. I have created a number of articles on this basis. The award of the mark to an individual school is reported in many local newspapers, but I do not think they give any more information than that provided by the charity itself. However if a reader of such a paper wonders what the mark is, then they might turn to Wikipedia. At least they will find it is legitimate in the sense of being a registered UK charity, which submits annual reports and accounts. I have no particular brief or personal knowledge of the organisation. Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To respond to this, without wanting to cast any shade on Chemical Engineer, who I am sure was acting in good faith: simply existing and being mentioned in existing articles is not enough to warrant an article. I've spent quite a bit of time looking for proper coverage of this scheme, and I've come to the conclusion that it's nothing more than a marketing badge. A school applies for the award when they meet the criteria; the charity gives the school the award; the school puts out a press release; and that's it. Unless anyone can dig up any decent sources giving the scheme significant coverage, I think that what we need to be doing is removing mention of it from our articles about British schools, rather than amplifying their PR push. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From what I can tell this a fake award being used by schools as a paid for PR tool. There assessment criteria for who qualifies for their "award" are obviously crap that any school can easily meet. Same goes for the horrible state of available (or really non-existent) references. I totally agree with Girth Summit that the proper thing to do, instead of having an article about this, is to remove mentions of it from articles about British schools. Although, I don't put that on the article creator. I probably would have rolled the dice and created an article for it myself. Since sometimes you can't really tell what works or doesn't on here until after the fact and sometimes it makes sense at the time to create articles about things that are mentioned a lot in other articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piyadasa Ranasinghe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Party apparatchik, never voted into or held public office and therefore fails WP:NPOL. Bibliography not referenced in article, dubious whether sources are RS in any case. Books search throws up an academic, not this gentleman. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I reviewed this and thought it would be a borderline GNG pass rather than NPOL which it certainly doesn’t pass. Mccapra (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Analysis of this type of biography is difficult because of language and cultural divides. The application of NPOL to this person would be incorrect - he was not a politician in the sense of somebody that participates in the political process of the state. He was a revolutionary in a leadership role of a communist party dedicated to overthrowing the political process of the state. In either case, WP:GNG compliance seems established by significant coverage in Silumina, an apparent Sinhalese weekly news outlet, and Lankadeepa, another Sinhalese news outlet. There is no reason to reject these as non-RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, largely per Eggishorn. He doesn't pass WP:NPOL, but the substantial coverage in two major Sinhalese press outlets is, in this case, sufficient to pass the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jameh Mosque of Saveh. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The minaret of the Mosque Jame - Saveh (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 minaret is part of the Jameh Mosque of Saveh, and that article already has most of the information in this article. In objecting to my PROD nomination, the page creator raised the point that the minaret is not physically attached to the mosque, but sources treat it as part of the mosque complex, e.g.: This majestic mosque comprises of a courtyard, porch, minarets, a few nocturnal areas, dome and two archaic altars with inscription in Kufic script. [1] The minaret is not sufficiently independent of the mosque to warrant its own article. Rublov (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rublov (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rublov (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Rublov (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the mosque article. Structure is associated with the mosque complex and can be described there. Hog Farm _Talk 15:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge >>> Jameh Mosque of Saveh. Djflem (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The article meets notability for the following reasons:

1. This article already stands on its own in Wikipedia Persian and Wikipedia Arabic and has notability.

2. This minaret itself is registered in Iran's National Heritage (as explained in the article).

3. The minaret is outside the mosque and not a part of it.

4. In Iran and neighboring countries minarets normally have their own history and purpose, separate from the surrounding.^[1], ^[2] Alex-h (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Jameh Mosque of Saveh per other merge recommendations. Looking at Google Maps, the minaret appears to be on the mosque grounds just a few feet away; this article is called The minaret of the Mosque Jame - Saveh which certainly suggests a close connection to the mosque. Contrary to the idea that in Iran minarets have their own history and purpose separate from mosques, the sources cited by Alex-h say "The minarets in Iran after converting to Islam have become parts and parcels of the mosques ...." [2] and "Basically, a minaret is a slender tower built at the side of a mosque ...." [3]. Both the article about the minaret and the article about the mosque are short and merging the two would be more helpful than keeping them separate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, if this minaret really were a separate topic from the mosque, wouldn't it have a separate name of its own? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I can see no value whatsoever in having two separate articles. The minaret is clearly considered to be part of the mosque, even if it stands on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jameh Mosque of Saveh as it was suggested Mardetanha (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Start-Up (South Korean TV series). Daniel (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two Words (Wendy song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Although released as a single, the song does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. Sources like this constitutes press release. The recording has appeared on the Gaon Digital Chart at 143 but has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted or is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. As an alternate to deletion, I am fine with a redirect to the drama article Start Up. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT I'm fine with redirecting. The article seems to be too short and is in line with your comments regarding not having a substantial coverage. Thank you. ReVeluv02 (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect only charting doesn't make a song notable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) doktorb _words^deeds 22:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom by-election records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Largely uncited, unsourced, listicle of cruft, trivia, and miscellaneous items. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground of all this random stuff. doktorb _words^deeds 17:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revise. The article certainly has issues but it's a bit unclear why it's been proposed for deletion by the user who has made over 20% of the last 500 edits. Have they only just noticed? Could they not have addressed these issues with some of these edits? It seems the issues would be better dealt with by removing unsourced material and trivia, and perhaps splitting the article, rather than removing the information in its entirety. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Park (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, coverage limited to primary sources and an article in a student newspaper Dexxtrall (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find any coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable singer, rapper, and songwriter Rondolinda (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suvodeep Chatterjee (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 standards of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Awards won do not rise to the level required, and the one supposedly granted by Barack Obama is not evidenced in the sources. ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find any coverage in reliable sources. NickCT (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The notability here is sketchy. The fact that grainy photographs of the actual award certificates appear in some sources points to the fabrication of sources. I don't think we will lose anything by not having an article on the Guinness World Record holder for the most painted handprints (65 in one minute). --- Possibly ☎

Let's add salt to that. There was a deletion discussion seven years ago for Suvodeep chatterjee (lower case) that is not listed above and claimed to be the second deletion discussion. That means this is potentially the fourth AfD. There are multiple blocked socks associated with these creations. Salting Suvodeep chatterjee, suvodeep chatterjee, Suvodeep chatterjee (artist) and Suvodeep Chatterjee (artist) seems appropriate, although one can imagine that Suvodeep chatterjee (somethign else) will be next. --- Possibly ☎ 19:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hidden AfDs are Suvodeep chatterjee (1st nomination) and Suvodeep chatterjee (2nd_nomination). --- Possibly ☎ 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete questionable notability, lacks in-depth coverage in RS to satisfy GEN or ANYBIO. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree the previous deletions are authentic that were held in 2013. And its a long time. I am aware of these AFDs already and same are mentioned on article's talk page just before creating the article. Now the subject clearly passes WP:ANYBIO on the ground of many notable awards like Guinness World Records, Limca Book of Records and Kentucky Colonel honors. I would also like to ping Explicit who recently declined a speedy here. Johnson Wagart (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Guinness World Records will authenticate any record that someone pays them to (see Guinness World Records#Change in business model). Likewise with the Limca Book of Records, which is basically a way for them to promote themselves. Being a Kentucky Colonel is not as prestigious as it sounds. ... discospinster _talk 15:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly passes WP:THREE. The best resources that are from reliable references and independent of the subject are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. On the basis of WP:THREE it passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Johnson Wagart (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Again, these are not much more than vanity publications. You can do pretty much anything and have yourself declared a record holder. ... discospinster _talk 15:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Johnson Wagart is the author of this article, which says (or rather said, as I deleted it) that Barack Obama gave this guy an award. The funny thing is, the source (in Bengali, with lots of original photos of the award) did not say that. There is no record of Obama ever giving this guy an award. The award memntioned is actually the "Presidential Champions Platinum Award", which is an award anyone in the world could get by self-reporting their physical fitness activities to a website. This was all based on the honour system. Since anyone could get it, it's no surprise that Suvodeep Chatterjee got right in there and applied. Regarding the Kentucky award, that is a silly thing that you pay for; they use the funds raised or philanthropy. This Wall Street Journal article says that Governor Beshear gave made 100,000 into Kentucky Colonels while he was in office for eight years. That means they gave out about 250 Kentucky colonel awards a week, or about one every ten minutes, for eight years running. In conclusion, the only thing I get from reading this article is that someone out there has an extremely strong urge to promote this individual. This latest version of the article is part of that promotional campaign. --- Possibly ☎ 08:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note, as per User:discospinster 1 this is the vanity publication.Johnson Wagart (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson Wagart: for a two-day old account, you are doing really well! You have used Twinkle to launch two other AfDs, citing appropriate reasons, and above you are arguing notability based on WP:THREE! How did you gain so much competence in only 48 hours? --- Possibly ☎ 08:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 of Asom Barta Cabayi (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asom Barta (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 paper fails WP:GNG. All three references are primary sources. Two are press releases. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tonay Borah. Infobox illustration (at time of this nomination) is up for deletion on Commons as a copyvio. This is Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Salt. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dusty Chaps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only results on WorldRadioHistory.com were ads for their label and passing mentions in the context of other works. All of the hits on Newspapers.com were sporadic local coverage in Tucson's newspaper. None of the albums charted, nor did any of the singles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Chaps were a band of note in the Southwest in their time, on their own and as an influence on others. Still performing occasionally. They were chosen for the first Route 66 anthology for good reason. The article does need a good bit of fleshing out, with good references. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Barefoot through the chollas: Liking them is not a reason to keep. I just pointed out that there are no good references because they so thoroughly slipped under the radar. The coverage I found from the Tucson paper is just routine "this band is performing at this spot" coverage. Literally zero coverage in any other state. None of the major music magazines of the day gave them so much as a passing mention, save for ads by their label. None of that is reliable coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to bicker. I'm here to suggest keep, for the reasons I gave. I saw what you had written, and as you see above, I said nothing about liking/not liking. I did say that the article needed fleshing out, with good references (obviously, there's a huge chasm between "I haven't found" good references and "there are no" good references). Paciencia. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here are some other sources towards meeting WP:SIGCOV: [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. There's likely offline reviews in Billboard, Variety, Rolling Stones, etc.4meter4 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Some further offline sources include:

Enthal, Andrea (May 1, 1986). "UNDERGROUND". Spin. 2 (2): 38-39.

Mcdonough, Jack (April 22, 1978). "Talent: 'Different' Direction For Axton On Disks. In Clubs". Billboard. 90 (16): 64.

"Top Album Picks: Billboard's Recommended LPs". Billboard. 90 (8): 86, 88. February 25, 1978.

Nelson, Pat (May 20, 1978). "Singles Still Crucial For Country Careers". Billboard. 90 (20): 1, 58, 62.

Cooper, B. Lee (December 1, 2008). "Honky Tonks, Jukeboxes, and Wild, Wild Women: Audio Images of Blue-Collar Night Life-A Selected Discography". Popular music and society. 31 (5): 663–683.

Davis, Maia (21 November 1993). "Banjo-Plucking Teacher Shows His Other Side". Los Angeles Times. p. Ventura West Edition, 3A.

Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @4meter4: so are you going to add them? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment. I have other projects I'm more interested in at present. Feel free to add any sources I posted here.4meter4 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: I am having a problem with general notability considering WP:BAND. I ran across one source that states Domino Joe ranked 27,597. Almost close to the top but which "one" of the criteria (of 12) does it pass? -- Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand the question re Domino Joe. But of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles, they satisfy 1, 5, 7, and 10 that I know of. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets NMUSIC#5, with two albums on a MAJOR label. SIGCOV in independent, reliable, sources (Have Not Been The Same), Billboard reviewed an album [8], and newspaper coverage not local to Tuscon [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. This was just skimming the top of non-Tuscon articles at newspapers.com. Clearly meets GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I consider Ten Pound Hammer to be an expert on country, but I think the Billboard review is a step in the right direction. I agree that most of the newspaper sources (that I can view) are from AZ. The 1983 Rolling Stone Record Guide indicates that the Dusty Chaps were reviewed in the previous guide (maybe 1979?), so perhaps there are some things from actual 1970s Rolling Stones as well... (edit conflict) Caro7200 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per 78.26's provided references. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #4; the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a previously blocked account. No prejudice against renomination by a non-sock editor. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul 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)

it fails WP:GNG and has lack of reliable sources and also fails WP:NACTOR. He is also not notable only has been in reality shows like Bigg Boss. Preetykaur761 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apphia Clara Manjoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Set out to try and edit this mess of an article but am not convinced that it meets WP:GNG. Sources are limited to those covering her death, and several make only passing reference to her when discussing her husband Dexxtrall (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sources are limited, it seems the article doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Article is more about the subject's causes. No in-line references WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nomination is so erroneous (literally showing GNG) that it has not a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and could just as well be also speedily kept by WP:CSK no. 3 (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don’t understand why citations 7 through 11 are even being referenced or what their relevance to the subject of the article is as they mostly do not mention any keywords such as “skeptic,” “podcast,” or “Novella.” Novella is mentioned in passing a couple times but never in connection to the podcast. As far as I can tell the two Skeptical Inquirer articles are the only sources that aren’t self-published or from a blog, social media, or other unreliable source. However, these two articles are written by journalists (Rob Palmer and Susan Gerbic) who aren’t particularly well known from a magazine that isn’t particularly well known. It's also worth noting that these authors are part of "the Guerilla Skeptcism on Wikipedia team" according to the profile information at the bottom of both articles. These sources are also in interview format so almost all the information is directly coming from the hosts of the show as opposed to an independent or secondary source. I searched around for some sources that might indicate some level of notability, but the only sources I could find that had more than a trivial mention include book riot, The Hindu Buisness Line, Business Insider, and Thrillist. These sources only dedicate a short paragraph to the podcast and I’m unconvinced that the topic meets WP:GNG. The podcast won some People’s Choice Awards, which might qualify it for WP:WEBCRIT but the guideline says that an article “may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria” not that it’s guaranteed. Also, the People’s Choice Award is arguably not a “well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization”. If someone would like to add the sources I found to the hosts’ articles that might be worth the time, but I don’t think anything from this article is salvageable so I’m not sure that would even count as a merge.If the podcast is determined to be notable enough for a stand alone article I still think the majority of the article needs to be rewritten and given the available sources wouldn’t be much more than a stub. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Skeptical Inquirer has been in publication for over forty years, has an international distribution and is widely regarded as one of the foundational publications of modern skepticism. To describe it as "not particularly well known" as part of an AfD argument strains credulity. The further claim that those two cites are the only independent ones is just blatantly false: I count 12 independent sources cited in the references.

The complaint about cites 7-11 above would have taken a single mouse click to verify: they're about one of the podcast's hosts, and are properly used to support content about that host. The claim that they don't contain the word "Novella" is categorically false. They're all about Steven Novella.

The complaints here about the Podcast Awards are even more strange. We have an article about them which has survived an AfD and is well-sourced, yet they're somehow not notable? That's an oxymoron.

The fact that even the nominator managed to find 4 references which aren't currently used in the article demonstrates rather clearly that there's no lack of sourcing (and thus, no lack of notability) here.

Finally, I'd like to draw any other editor's attention to the last AfD and the result: Unanimous "Keep". Have the sources which supported it then since ceased to exist? No. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This podcast handily passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Here are several secondary WP:RSes which cover the subject in moderate-to-heavy depth at a national level.^[1][2][3] But here are also some local sources with even more significant coverage of the subject.^[4][5] It's also featured often as a "top listen" in features about science podcasts.^[6][7] Their book has been reviewed in national outlets.^{[8][9][10][11]} As a news/entertainment organization, they also pass WP:AUD with a whopping 132 million+ downloads and 100,000+ weekly listeners.^[12][3] So, in my interpretation of the relevant WP:PAG, it's an obvious keep.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Remarkably, it's on several current Top Ten Science Podcasts lists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shibboleth. "A magazine that isn’t particularly well known"? Pull the other one. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When the AfD nomination lists multiple independent sources, one has to ask why we are even bothering with this. I mean literally one could vote "Keep per nom" without any trace of irony. This should be SNOW withdrawn by the nominator, followed by a light trouting. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hyperion35 for introducing me to the term trouting. This is precisely what I needed in my life this fine Thursday.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it refers to WP:TROUT; the act of smacking someone in the face with a dead fish.

Which, now that I think about it, is far worse than what's described in your link.

And it gets better! You can also get whaled. Which is, of course, far better than getting whaled. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow yeah I would much rather get Urban Dictionary trouted than smacked in the face with a dead fish. The former is is a child's game, the latter is a recipe for giving somebody FACE GANGRENE.^[13][14] /s --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stealing FACE GANGRENE for the name of my new Grindcore band. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winifred Barker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks enough significant coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. This kind of content might be better housed as part of a List of recipients of the Colonial Police Medal rather than in a stand alone article that can never develop due to lack of sources. 4meter4 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the nominator has fundamentally misunderstood something here. Her notability has nothing whatsoever to do with her holding the CPM, a fairly minor award. She is notable because she was the head of the Women's Branch of the Metropolitan Police, and was thus by far the most senior female police officer in the UK at a time when there were very few policewomen in the world. Only four people ever held this position and they were all notable. Given the prominence of her position, there will certainly be print sources out there if anyone is able to find them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp That may be, but is there a source verifying that as a fact and affirming its significance? Otherwise that's an original claim which we can't make per WP:No Original Research. Ultimately we need sources saying that to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that article long before Wikipedia became obsessed with sourcing. I believe I got the information from The Times, but I can't currently get access to the website. I'll try to see what I can find, but I have provided a citation as to her post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot find any significant coverage of her at all. The sources in the article mention her only trivially: the first one is simply a death index; the second mentions her exactly once in a brief note on a timeline; the third ([14]) just says "Other women among almost 600 present were the Chief Superintendent of the Women's Metropolitan Police, Miss Winifred Barker..." and continues to list other names; the fourth ([15]) mentions her in passing ("he was to have had a chat with Superintendent Winifred Barker, head of the Island's Women Police"); and so on. The article cobbles together probably most of the trivial mentions of her out there, but none of them say anything useful or constitute significant coverage. If another article could be found that this could be merged into, I'd be in support of that, but I don't know where it would fit. Aerin17 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aerin17 Exactly what I was thinking. What might be better would be an article on the Women's Branch of the Metropolitan Police itself as opposed to a bunch of mini biographies. This could potentially be a subsection at Metropolitan Police as well.4meter4 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This may have come up already, but I just had a look and she's mentioned in a Telegraph article here (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-obituaries/8949477/Shirley-Becke.html), but behind a paywall so I can't read it I'm afraid. Could I apologise in advance because I don't know the correct way to comment here at all, just stumbled on this. Persicifolia (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persicifolia, I was able to access an archived version of the obituary ([16]). Unfortunately, it seems that it is just another trivial mention and doesn't particularly contribute to her notability. Aerin17 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment She seems to appear on pp. 197-200 of Joan Lock, The British Policewoman: Her Story (1979). Furius (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable as a senior woman police office in the Met Police in the 1960s, she was also awarded the Queen's Police Medal in 1965 https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/43529/supplement/32 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piecesofuk: Well spotted. I'd missed that one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge to History of the Metropolitan Police Keep - per the sources reviewed in this discussion, my own research, and the sources in the article, WP:BASIC notability does not appears to be established for a standalone article, even with the Queen's Police Medal, and there does not seem to be a suitable article available for a merge at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Updated per Furius, and there is a 2015 edition of the book Furius cited that may be helpful for the merge generally and specifically for Winifred Barker. Beccaynr (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Updated per sources found by SusunW. Beccaynr (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If we go down the redirect route, I think that it should be a redirect and merge to History of the Metropolitan Police (which currently doesn't mention the A4 Women's branch). Furius (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT: There is a significant bio of her here[17] as well as other articles which confirm details of her career[18] and [19] There are 1/2 a dozen entries in this book[20], which while they are name checks, indicate she was a honoured guest at the Savoy's annual Woman of the Year luncheon, which was an exclusive event. SusunW (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have expanded the article with the information I posted above and note that she appears to meet WP:BASIC. I think it is clear we have refuted the nominator's suggestion that the article can't be further developed. The issue here is that she lived in the pre-internet age and during the period where copyright is still in play and many sources are not digitized. I do not have access to a library, but hopefully someone can find Lock's The British Policewoman: Her Story (1979), as indicated by Furius. I also do not have access to British newspapers, other than as I indicated. Checking with editors who do, I was informed that the Gloucester Citizen which is likely where an obit of her was published, has not been fully digitized for availability on line. SusunW (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Enough independent secondary sources have been located to verify and confirm notability. Therefore my suggested course of action is to keep the article and build on it, if needed. --ARoseWolf 12:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ares Galaxy (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:NSOFT. None of the four sources provided in the article and on the talk page are both reliable and in-depth. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moulovir Char 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)

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES "following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG." Other than some listing site or passing mention, I didn't found any significant coverage in reliable sources about this school. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Page was created back in 2016. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Brascoian When a page was created has no relevance in determining whether it is kept or deleted. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not nearly enough sourcing to justify an article on an organization. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, so we do not keep old articles just because they have been awhile. 2016 is actually fairly recent in Wikipedia time anyway. We currently have a deletion discussion on a 2002 created article alleging it is a hoax, and another proposed deletion on a 2005 created article suggesting it is a hoax. The ratio of the size of Wikipedia to the amount of editors who patrol against such problems, plus our failure to have an adequate process to screen articles while in creation has lead to this problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then there are people like me who actually submit articles to AfC. I did so back in Feburary, and the article is still not reviewed. We have over 4,000 articles in AfC waiting for review. We need more editors to become AfC reviewers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I swear I voted on this already, but apparently I didn't. Given that that though, I'm going to skip the long winded rant about why this isn't notable and instead just say that I agree with Johnpacklambert about why it should be deleted. Hopefully that's good enough. If not, then "blah blah blah, fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG/Whatever..Etc. etc." ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single Speed World Championship (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 the article itself states, this competition "is not sanctioned by any governing body" and "has little organization", and I cannot see that WP:SPORTSEVENT is met. I'm sure it is great fun for everybody involved, but of the many details that have been added to the article, almost nothing is sourced. I have looked for sources, and have found some articles about individual events such as this and this, but the coverage is all about how unofficial/irreverent/silly it is, and that is not much to base an article on. I think the best piece of coverage is this article from New York Times, but it is from 2008 and with no sustained coverage of the championship and no significant coverage in multiple sources I don't think that WP:NEVENTS or WP:GNG is met either. bonadea contributions talk 14:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The competitors do not seem to meet notability criteria, the nature of the article seems to lend itself to anecdotal recount rather than analytical description in encyclopaedic tone if the content of the article is anything to judge by. Regardless of the ability of the athletes, this is not run as a high level sports championship, but as an informal jamboree. Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midfield quartet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contrary to what the article claims, a "midfield quartet" is just the 4 players making up the midfield in e.g. a 4-4-2 or a 5-4-1 (can also be in other sports of course). Which is just a dictionary definition.[21] No reason to create a novel definition for something rather mundane. Fram (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the 4 players making up the midfield, midfield quartet article should be understood in the context of the Golden generation article

No, you claim that the term "midfield quartet" is used for an exceptional quartet, while in reality it is used for any such quartet. A "golden generation", on the other hand, is by definition an exceptional group (though, as with most such terms, it gets used way too often). It's not as if anyone is ever going to say "My God, these aren't just four midfield players, they are a midfield quartet!" or anything similar. Fram (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I made a mistake about article name, I changed the article name to golden quartet and cited new sources. Thanks for your advice. Footwiks (talk)

You shouldn't move articles in the midst of an AfD, and you should be a lot more careful when sourcing stuff: your first source for the "golden quartet" of Zico, Socrates et al. mentions both "golden quartet" and "Zico", but isn't about this golden quartet[22], while your second source for the same supposed golden quartet doesn't use the term "golden quartet"[23]. And "golden quartet" isn't linked to football especially, every group of 4 people who together are seen as exceptional can be labeled "golden quartet", just like there are "golden trio's" and so on (e.g. for football, the golden trio Messi, Xavi and Iniesta is a much more common term than these golden quartets). Fram (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - even with the name change, this feels like a WP:NEOLOGISM that is only used in passing in a couple of articles, it doesn't warrant an article Dexxtrall (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to BBC News article. Reliable source - BBC used golden quartet in 2003. I don' think that this term is NEOLOGISM.Footwiks (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly not a notable concept. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have reverted the undiscussed move by @Footwiks:, which happened after the AFD was opened. If it happens again I will block Footwiks. GiantSnowman 19:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above, not needed. GiantSnowman 19:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just a dictionary definition for using 4 midfielders. Not any thing here worth merging into the midfielder article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole article seems pointless and trivial, WP:OR ? I agree with the main AfD assessment by Fram for deletion. Govvy (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted. Daniel (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palauni Tapusoa (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 have SIGCOV, and as far as I can tell does not meet the football notability standard. The two matches in OFCCL were in the preliminary round. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In my opinion the person have been part of Utulei Youth and is currently playing for Pago Youth. He have played 2 matches in OFC Champions League and have did 3 goals in these 3 matches. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 13:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Playing for teams that play in an amateur league, the FFAS Senior League.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To make this point clear: they would pass the "spirit" of WP:NFOOTY if the OFC Champions League matches were between 2 fully professional teams, but both teams were amateurs. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Keeping in mind that this article is a stub. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note After Reading through WP:SPORTS He is a Professional sports person. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Brascoian have you got any sources showing in-depth coverage of Tapusoa? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not enough coverage to pass NFOOTBALL. Rondolinda (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG, 2 appearances in the OFC Ch:ampions League does not confer an "automatic" notability, especially when the matches were between amateur teams. 08:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - amateur footballer with no WP:SIGCOV anywhere as far as I can see. Please ping me if anyone manages to find some Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Wesley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no secondary references. Best source I could find in a BEFORE was [24] and that only gives four sentences of brief coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find any notable sources searching via the ProQuest database of Australian and NZ newspaper articles, just 5 mentions of his name in brief listings of triathlons in local/regional newspapers. Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no relevant achievements and correspondingly, no significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The delete comments only argued that the subject being the oldest WWII vet does not inherently make him notable, which is true and not debated. All other editors determined the article passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in more than three reliable, independent sources, leading to a consensus of Keep. (non-admin closure)—FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 06:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Brooks (American veteran) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Being the oldest known surviving American World War II veteran does not make him wiki worthy ThurstonMitchell (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no basis for notability/WP:1E. There will always be an oldest veteran of every war and then they'll die and someone else will become the oldest veteran and so on until all the veterans are dead, that doesn't make any of them notable even if they do attract brief media attention.Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. While it is remarkable he has lived this long, that in and of itself is not necessarily wiki worthy. More interesting would be what he did while in the military and what he did with his life since. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject has extensive significant coverage in reliable sources (National Geographic, CBS News, etc.), which makes him notable per WP:BASIC. Rogermx (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger, I can’t remember the guy’s name but there was someone on one of the American National morning news shows that would give shout outs to centenarians having birthdays that day. Ok, so you were mentioned on a national network news show. But being wished a happy 105th birthday is much different than a feature about your actions on the battle field. And as written, this article simply indicates he is the oldest veteran of his era. That is not inherently notable. ThurstonMitchell (talk)|
• Keep- Full disclosure: I am the creator of this article, so my vote is probably not unexpected. Lawrence Brooks has received significant independent media coverage, including a full article in National Geographic. If anybody reading this has a National Geographic subscription, I would appreciate it if they could add information from it into this article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Significant media coverage from well know and reliable sources and such passes WP:Basic. There also exists a precedent for such Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robley Rex. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He looks in great shape for 111. I know this because I've read some of the coverage. And it's the coverage which matters per WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of people look great for the age. When it comes to Wiki, that is meaningless. And you could be written up multiple times in local publications for being the tiddlywinks champion of the elementary school you attend but the coverage for something like that doesn’t mean you deserve an article here. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator's heckling is not persuasive as we already have articles about tiddlywinks champions such as Larry Kahn. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – About a decade ago we were measuring the last WWI veterans. We are nowhere near that point with WWII veterans yet. The oldest WWII veteran at this particular moment in time is not notable. Being the oldest of a particular accolade does not grant sufficient notability to be considered eligible for a separate article within an encyclopaedia. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if there was only coverage about him in relation to his birthday, that would be a WP:BLP1E fail, but there is coverage out there for other reasons. The NatGeo article is a good example, and I also found this in the The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate, which provides SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then edit the article to share the information. This is a site to share information not keep it secret. Include the wiki worthy information in the article. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is based around the existence of coverage, not whether that coverage is in the article as of yet. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: GNG is very easily met. But the page as it stands isn't doing anyone any favours. Since this is a BLP it should be built up quickly. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As written, there are enough sources to meet GNG, and below are 4 more clippings. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80806435/wwii-veteran-turns-107-with-a-party-in-n/
• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80807390/wwii-veteran-turns-107-in-nola/
• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80806849/wwii-vet-celebrates-his-107th-anniversar/
• https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80807062/wwii-veteran-celebrates-110th-anniversar/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 14:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Kamusella (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 was created and heavily edited by the subject themselves. Much of the language reads like puffery and I am unsure just how well-sourced it is (as I am not sure some of it is even actually about him). Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ... but all looks sourced. Let’s take a closer look at it. I’ll be back with my opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the few I checked none seem to be reviews, they are all link to the books (or publishers) site or other book selling sites, as I said above there seems to be a degree of classic cite spam going on.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There are several reviews of one book listed in a WP:PROMO fashion at the end of the "Academic career" section. I'll go to move them to the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • So the book might be notable?Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • Slatersteven, At least one (I name below) clearly is. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep he has multiple scholarly reviews for his books: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] which are enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR and his GS shows hundreds of citations which make him pass the bar for WP:NPROF. The article may need an overhaul especially with the list of books being half of it but should not be deleted. --hroest 14:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - after a closer look, I equal with the nominator’ judgments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the multiple published reviews identified by hroest. I find this argument more convincing than the NPROF argument also made by hroest. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article needs a major overhaul and is the puffiest of puff's, and really should be re-written by someone other than the subject of the article. Oy, why am I not surprised. Anyway, I am of the view that he fails at WP:PROF but does pass by WP:AUTHOR per others research, and therefore should be kept. Tautomers_{(T C)} 03:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. At least one of his books (The politics of language and nationalism in modern Central Europe) is clearly notable (several academic reviews). He would be kept on pl wiki which is more inclusive for European academics (due to treating habilitation as sufficient). He is probably notable. That said, as COI was already mentioned, I'll point to User_talk:Hyrdlak#Tomasz_Kamusella (it seems that the article was started by the subject themselves, and even edited quite recently). Some COI tags may be necessary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I see a pass of WP:NAUTHOR here, with at least three books that are reviewed, one significantly. (The reviews for two are in the article, there is also this review [32] ). The WP:NAUTHOR case is not so strong as I expected, but I think it's enough to not WP:TNT the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lyster (British Army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't inherit military notability from Charles George Gordon, and his book With Gordon in China doesn't appear to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zaza Amarov (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 also up for deletion in Russian Wikipedia. The references do not demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:NACTOR. In my search, I found a brief quote in Gazeta but I doubt that that is enough to establish notability on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The category "singer" should be removed because the subject released only 1 song and it's not popular. The source #5 is a very short gossip and the website is flagged as yellow press (according to WoT). Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I note that two sources were added recently but none of those show WP:SIGCOV either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's possible that he could qualify under rules for business people, if his gigs in fashion and hairdressing have received any coverage from the business press. I can find nothing of the sort under either spelling of his name. In all of his endeavors I can only find his own Linkedin-like entries in various self-promotional services. I can also find nothing on his singing side gig except minor notices of him being present in a few productions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Death of Asaki Akiyo. Consensus is now clear. BD2412 T 01:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asaki Akiyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails notability policy per WP:ONEEVENT. Generally city council members are not notable for their political careers, and this particular politician is only notable for a shoplifting scandal leading to her suicide. 4meter4 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tokyo city is a prefecture (i.e. state/province level), so membership of its legislature counts under N:POL. If that fails (say, she's actually a councillor of a subdivision of the city), then Move to Suicide of Asaki Akiyo. The media coverage around the event and the subsequent defamation charges seem likely to make this notable. The Japanese language article is enormous and has 144 refs. Furius (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I have no opinion on notability, but I just wanted to note that WP:NPOL doesn't apply. By its terms, the provincial-legislator provision of NPOL only applies to federal states, not unitary ones like Japan. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely the prefectural system counts under the "or similar" part of that guideline? Furius (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Given that we aren’t likely to get much more input, I would be ok with a move to Suicide of Asaki Akiyo for the sake of closing out this nom and reaching a consensus if that is ok with Furius.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy with that. Furius (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the provincial-legislator provision of NPOL only applies to federal states, not unitary ones like Japan. That's not a quite correct interpretation of NPOL; there are quite a number of non-federal states with sub-national parliamentary jurisdictions whose members satisfy NPOL, eg Faroe Islands, Åland, Curaçao, Zanzibar. There's also cases such as the French conseils régional or the Indonesian Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (especially since the fall of the Orde Baru and the reforms of the late 90s) which sit in an undetermined (AFAIA?) area vis à vis NPOL. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Goldsztajn, I did find a brief discussion of the French regional councils and NPOL; you can read it here. Everyone there seemed to agree that members of the regional councils didn't meet NPOL because they lacked substantial discretion to decide policy. (See also this AfD, which followed the same premise.) Broadly speaking, I'd say the same reasoning applies to Japan: our article states that the prefectures only exercise delegated power subject to the ultimate oversight of the central government. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraordinary Writ, am in heated agreement with regard to prefectures and Japan. I was just trying to emphasise that a unitary state is not per se exclusionary of having subnational parliamentary bodies that meet NPOL as my cases of Denmark, Finland, Netherlands and Tanzania demonstrate. Thanks for the link on the discussion regarding France, will read through it. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Death of Asaki Akiyo because the article and the jawiki one focus on her death and contain little info about her life. (t · c) buidhe 07:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move not clear to me that death is better than suicide for the title (is there anything more than conspiracy theory that suicide was not the cause of death?), but leave that to others to conclude. There's a fair amount of bumpf sourcing in the Japanese language article, but also clearly enough RS (I can at least see pieces from the Japan Times, Daily Yomiyuri and Asahi Weekly). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move agree that the article is more about her death.
• Move per Goldsztajn. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. A. Statz (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, WP:AUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The awards are mostly a bit obscure, but the Webby Award ain't nothing. pburka (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, appears notable per WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]