Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Donors Trust. Daniel (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Lynn Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Just google "Whitney Lynn Ball". There is no RS coverage of note of this person. The notability of this person is solely tied to having been one of several founders of Donors Trust. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - she was more often covered as "Whitney Ball", which returns more hits. There are brief obits in Reason, National Review, and the Journal of Philanthropy, none of which are particularly helpful. The best in-depth coverage I see is Mother Jones from 2014. Regardless, it seems the entirety of her notability is connected to Donors Trust. As it happens, we already have an article about that. It's possible some background about her could be expanded, so wouldn't be opposed to calling this a Merge, but I'm not seeing a case for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 21 February 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. The AFD has received three relists and remained open for around month, and there has been very minimal participation. Both arguments (those of delete & keep) incline me to close this as a "no consensus". (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalya Zemna (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. Some Ukrainian coverage is cited, but I am not getting the impression that it meets the threshold for independent, significant coverage, or that other such coverage exists. Promotional article about a "herbalist and healer" who supposedly healed her own serious heart condition with herbal remedies. Also founded a non-notable political party that I've nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian Party "Green Planet". Lennart97 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Something as simple as Google Translate would have demonstrated she passes GNG through things like this, this, and this. We can be confident in turn more may exist in Ukrainian. "The article is overly promotional/fringe in its current state" means WP:SOFIXIT. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, coverage exists. Source 1 and source 2 are both nothing more than interviews with the subject, which do not necessarily constitute significant coverage, and I am unable to determine whether these are reliable sources (let me know if you know). Source 3 is a very short announcement that she is participating in an election with her party - seems like routine coverage to me. So I'm interested to know why it's so very obvious that she passes GNG. Lennart97 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are usually significant coverage; these ones certainly appear to be. The .gov domain on source 1 is a strong indicator of RS-ism in the "doesn't post puff pieces about random people with nothing to write an article about" sense, and while machine translation strips out nuance, the overall vibe I got from the interviews was fairly respectable. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, that's fair enough. I'm just not as convinced. I really hope we can get some Ukrainian input in this discussion; my request at Wikiproject Ukraine unfortunately didn't result in anything (so far). Lennart97 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not seeing any claims for notability in the article, and the sources that I was able to get Google to translate didn't give me confidence that the subject has international notability. SilkTork (talk) 12:18, 12 March 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 Monotype system. SilkTork (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lanston Monotype Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Possible non-notable company, merging or deletion may be needed. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to meet WP:GNG (I have added a "Further reading" section). Monotype is one of the two dominant typesetting systems of the twentieth century. While the British offshoot was more successful, this is still a historically important company. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  

• Comment: A newspapers.com search returns 2,137 results for "Lanston Monotype Company". The only reason the company's notability seems to be in question is because it did not survive until the internet age, where sources would be a Google search away. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Monotype system. Once upon a time, most metal type came out of one of two machines: the Linotype machine and the Monotype system, each of which was sold by a different company. This company, Lanston Monotype, is not very interesting beyond the machine. Here is an article about the Monotype machine, and here is a video of it in action. As you can see, the machine is the main event. I added three slim sources on the company, but they are nto much. What is here can easily be merged to Monotype system.--- Possibly (talk) 03:33, 7 March 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) 12:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator is blocked for sockpuppetry. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No longer fails WP:GNG as the article has since been expanded and improved with references which was lacking prior, including the Vice magazine interview with Oliver Wang in which he mentions Mixcrate, as (in relation to topic of interview) the site was founded by those in the Filipino-American DJ community of the San Francisco Bay Area. Mixcrate was huge worldwide when it was active, and was the most trafficked social network for DJ artists in the United States (per Comscore). ~Hiddenstranger (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now vastly improved with many reliable, independent published sources including the Forbes source. Hiddenstranger (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that the added Forbes source is authored by a contributor, so it is generally considered unreliable. See WP:FORBESCON. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Forbes article was written by notable author, musician and music expert Bobby Owsinski, not just any unknown. Hiddenstranger (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly WP:SOAP, not seeing quality sourcing, notability not evident, passing mention in Forbes does not suffice, it's an advertisement. Acousmana (talk) 16:31, 9 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Bitri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Person doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There is literally a memorial page as a source. In 2021, everybody knows Wikipedia is not Find A Grave, Facebook, or Geneology.com. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect I have added a citation from the LA Times. I'm concerned this is a WP:BIO1E but I'm unsure where to redirect to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She had a career. She is on Spotify, probably signed. It is probably worth tyring to find an Albanian speaker to ferret out some sources. The music is very much of that type. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-- coverage is not super overwhelming but the English sources describe her as a popular Albanian singer, our Albanian article on her seems more lengthy (though poorly sourced) and I'm reluctant to !vote 'delete' without a search conducted in LOTEs, which may not be forthcoming. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No consensus I can see both sides of this, but the sources in the article (NYT, LATimes, Politico) are heavy weight and this is a strong indication other RS had covered the individual. Usually the "sources may exist" argument is made without any supporting evidence, but in this case I think there is reason to believe sources probably exist. The article also receives ~250 views a month, not huge, but people are looking for information about the individual 16yrs after their death; to me this is another indication the person is notable and sources would exist.

The delete arguments are valid though, no sources have been brought forward to show the subject has SIGCOV, 1E hasn't been refuted, and NOTMEMORIAL is a valid argument. I do not believe there will be a consensus to delete here, but I don't think there are sourcs at this time for a solid Keep. I tagged the article as needing citations. This can be revisited at another time with fresh eyes and language skills.  // Timothy :: talk  18:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find myself settling into keep on a lot of the edge cases where there is likely more coverage in other language sources. An Albanian singer that gets mentioned in big time sources almost certainly has huge coverage in their own language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see sufficient weight to the keep argument to override the delete arguments. Being a commentator is not the same as being commented on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carissa Christensen (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 business person who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows hits in sources which aren’t independent of her or sources which are unreliable such as this & this. WP:ANYBIO is also not met. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the coverage is very sparse. As a result there is not much to say int he article beyond the fact that she is an executive who is sometimes quoted in the media.--- Possibly (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacking in reliable sources and seems to be a known speaker in her field but nothing out of the ordinary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminsurance (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she has been a go-to person for commentating on the emerging industry over a number of years ^[1] and ^[2]

I don’t see how the two sources you provided does anything to establish notability & furthermore being a “go to” person isn’t a yardstick used in determining notability.Celestina007 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for using shorthand 'go to'. I still vote 'Keep' as I had noted in the citations and in article's opening section that it shows over a considerable time period, notable major organisations had considered her worthy of using and listening to for strategic advice.Kaybeesquared (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For starters; please always sign appropriately(I have done so for you now, see WP:SIGN all the same), secondly, there’s no need to bolden the keep used in body of the comment because it’s not like it’s going to make a difference or anything. Now, a portion of your comment above reads notable major organisations had considered her worthy of using and listening to for strategic advice, that isn’t still a criterion used in determining notability. Are you familiar with our notability policy? I’m not responding to you for you to change your !vote, I’m merely trying to make you know that you do not know what you think you know, all the rationales you have provided for !voting a keep aren’t in sync with our policy on notability. Celestina007 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 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. Daniel (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Syria insurgency (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 WP:OR as there are no sources for a “east syria insurgency” and combines multiple incidents into one conflict rather as a part of the broader syrian civil war. Ridax2020 (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was copied from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 6, where it was mistakenly listed initially. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Literally what? The article cites dozens of sources. Of course there is an insurgency. Multiple violent "incidents" - as you call it - do literally constitute an insurgency. For example, this article clearly describes that an ISIL insurgency continues in SDF-held areas, with the SDF and aligned groups waging a counter-insurgency campaign. Applodion (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You made no points, i never denied that there were incidents in this conflict. But I denied the fact that there’s a separate conflict called the “Eastern Syria Insurgency”, can you give me a source that calls it that? Using your logic the Franco–Turkish proxy conflict article shouldn’t have been removed. Bringing multiple incidents into a conflict of one person’s original thoughts is WP:OR. Ridax2020 (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still have to ask: What? You know that a conflict can have sub-conflicts such as campaigns, battles, and insurgencies? The article I cited literally says that there is an insurgency. Applodion (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think that the nominator is saying that breaking the overall Syrian Civil War into separate regional conflicts is what they consider original research. I think that the multiple sources disagree with the nominator. But I think that is what the nominator is saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Multiple sources that are clearly WP:RS. This is clearly not WP:OR. SunDawn (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You failed to prove to me that there’s an ongoing conflict called the “Eastern Syrian insurgency” though, I never denied there being incidents I just think that bringing multiple incidents into one article of a person’s original thoughts is literally original research and no article talks about a “Eastern Syrian Insurgency”. Ridax2020 (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per all above. Pilean (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restructure There is this very real issue with the all "insurgency" articles in how they all combine multiple different conflicts into one which isn't substantiated by reliable resources and is indeed original research. Placing all the different "insurgent" groups on one side is definitely original research and pushing an original POV. The only insurgency and counter-insurgency in eastern Syria as reported by reliable sources is the IS one. Attacks by pro-government and pro-Turkey insurgents have been reported by these resources but as individual attacks only, not as part of a greater insurgency and especially not as part of the same insurgency as the IS one. Lightspecs (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep i can find easy sources about this https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/05/isis-airstrikes-deir-ez-zor-syria-coalition-jaburi.amp.html?skipWem=1 this is not OR. But main groups and sources talks about mostly isis insurgency Shadow4dark (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per all above and for obvious reasons. There is an active ISIL insurgency in eastern Syria, as the group was forced underground after they lost their physical territory in the Battle of Baghuz. The U.S. in particular acknowledge there's a continued ISIL presence in the region and even the Trump administration cited ISIL's lingering post-territorial, tangential presence in Eastern Syria for why they're "protecting the oil fields" and re positioned its forces there and are still cooperating with the SDF, so deleting this article meant to cover that area of importance would be a disservice to readers and anyone involved in the ongoing attacks in that area and would make it appear no one is dying and the SDF is doing nothing. Even the Syrian government is still fighting ISIL in its own campaign in the very nearby Syrian Desert, with the help of Russia.
  ISIL is conducting a similar insurgency in Iraq, so if this article is deleted, what what makes that article different? You seem to not understand that conflicts can have their own sub-conflicts and overlapping areas of operation, because real life is complex and you don't need a formal declaration of a specifically named "insurgency" by some official body to determine what's practically, observably happening on the ground (an unnamed "low-level insurgency", which is a real term cited by RS's) where people are dying and SDF COIN operations are conducted. Especially for a complex, multi-sided war like the Syrian Civil War. Aren't most insurgencies unnamed anyway? Furthermore, the article is well-sourced by RS's (for the most part) and does not currently meet the criteria for WP:OR from what I see. RopeTricks (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This AfD has been relisted three times. It has had few contributors to the discussion. Of those !voting, three - including the nominator - are in favour of delete due to lack of significant reliable sources, with only one keep (from Piecesofuk, because they added sources). With three to one in favour of delete, numerically that would favour a delete. Also, lack of interest in a delete discussion in itself favours a delete on the principle of "no objection". On the other hand, the article was nominated for deletion when it was in this state: [1], when it had only two sources, and one of those was IMDB, which is generally considered to be an unreliable source, but it has been built on during the AfD discussion, and more sources added. However, two of the deletes came after the sources were added, and commented that the sources were not adequate - for example that the BBC source was an interview, and that coverage of her art career (her assumed notability) was sparse. Having looked at the BBC interview, I agree. The interview is about the town - she is used as a commentator on the town as a resident there. And other mentions, such as in the Irish Independent and Evening Herald, are "sparse" in that they mention her only in passing, in a trivial rather than the detailed or significant manner required of WP:GNG. However, The Impartial Reporter, a reliable source, does provide two detailed articles on her. And here's the rub. Certainly, they do not provide the information required of either WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST as pointed out by the nominator and user Possibly, when !voting delete, but they do provide some detailed coverage of her, as Possibly says, a "public personality". The downside of those sources is that they are local, which brings us back to the point made in the nomination that "The single source in the article is local coverage from her birthplace, so it counts for very little in terms of notability". That point has not been challenged, and has been implicitly supported by those commenting. It's also worth noting that two of those !voting to delete have been active in editing the article to provide sources, yet concluded after doing their research that there was not enough notability evidence for Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Falconer (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 appear to meet wither WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. I was not able to find enough coverage of her to meet WP:GNG, or to indicate that she meets any of the points in the SNGs. The single source in the article is local coverage from her birthplace, so it counts for very little in terms of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Found and added two more references. The talk page lists three other references which are all now deadlinks, but this may indicate more coverage exists. Tacyarg (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Added that she was interviewed in the BBC series Town, also added a reference from the Culture Northern Ireland website which probably could be used to add some more information Piecesofuk (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added an interview from Queen's University Belfast youTube channel Piecesofuk (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On the one hand, she has been covered by BBC and a few other good sources... but several of these are interviews. Might meet GNG as a sort of former public personality. On the other hand, coverage of her art career is very sparse. Definitely fails every point of WP:NARTIST. Possibly (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was on the fence about this one, added a couple of references and appreciate those added by others, but I don't think there is enough coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 20:02, 7 March 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. Daniel (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Sattar Qasim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and he doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - User:onel5969 Hello dear. Abd al-Sattar Qasim's article is an encyclopedic article, because Dr. Abd al-Sattar Qasim was a certified Palestinian politician and a university doctor, and he has dozens of books that talked about international politics, and he is also a scientific researcher in the field of politics and sociology. And Abdul Sattar Qassem died from the Corona virus. He is a Palestinian legal person. I hope to reconsider the topic of deleting the article. Accept my greetings --Osps7 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osps7 - took the liberty of adding a keep !vote to your note above, forgive me if that was presumptuous, but it seemed to be what you were indicating. I also formatted you comment to keep it flowing in the discussion. Please read WP:GNG to see what constitutes notability. I couldn't find any in-depth sourcing to show that this particular person meets the criteria. But there may be sources in other languages which did not show up in my searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a certified politician and doctor is not, in its own right, ample grounds for a wikipedia page. an article needs to demonstrate that an individual is notable, by showing that he has recieved significant coverage. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete 3 out of 4 of this article's links are to material created by the individual, and are not of sources showcasing his notability, the last one is an article about his death, and might be ample ground for keeping the article if more sources are listed at other points in his life, or referring to his various creations Totalstgamer (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - User:onel5969 Hello dear, Abdul Sattar Qassem is influential in the Palestinian people, and has many references in the Arabic language, and he is also a former candidate for the Palestinian presidency. He is a famous Arab academic, you can look at his article in Arabic, and he is also one of the oldest who obtained a doctorate in political science. In the event of a shortage of references, I will pledge to add more and more remarkable references. Accept my regards and respect. Osps7 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly suggest adding more references. as it stands, that appears to be the main reason for this article's deletion nomination Totalstgamer (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - based on Osps7's comment above, if the result is delete, I would suggest draftifying the article so that they can work on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - based on this article about his death, it seems the Middle East Eye is a reputable and independent English outlet, so I think this is enough to source the article. --hroest
• Keep - from obit found by hroest. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I concur with the statements made by Osps7 and hroest. Rest in peace, Abd al-Sattar Qasim. Jonathan170 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in addition to the Middle East Eye there is some coverage extablishing him as a prominent political scientist/national figure, including [2], [3], [4], and more. Described as well known critic and opponent, [5], p. 151-152. There's enough online and in english to provide a viable argument for notability (I'd vote 'weak keep') and that is upgraded to firm 'keep' when considering there is almost definitely much more coverage of a similar type in Arabic and offline. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable person, I agree with the comments in the page. Gianluigi02 ^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. Fenix down (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny King-Bisungu (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 NFOOTY as the 35 league appearances (which I highly doubt actually happened, given the lack of a soccerway/soccerbase profile) would have come in the Conference Premier. Fails GNG also, and is largely unsourced. TBH I would have thought this was a hoax, but I found a mention of him playing for Radford in 2014 here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails all relevant criteria and badly. I also found a passing mention of him on a match report on the Belper Town website. Very, very low level amateur footballer. Not even close to meeting WP:GNG. Probably an autobiography. The fact that this has lasted six years is shocking. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Pilean (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage is weak and Notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, Alex-h (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 17:23, 12 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bletsas (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 can't find any evidence that he's a notable speaker or computer scientist. The award is a community/group one and ignoring the fact that an interview doesn't work as independent coverage, it doesn't do much to make a case for notability either. Sourcing in the Greek article is similarly thin, and I can't find anything else. He isn't mentioned in One Laptop per Child and sourcing (also discussed in prior AfD) doesn't make it clear that his role was significant enough for this to be a redirect there. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per my comment on the previous AfD, which is still valid: I don't think he passes WP:PROF, and I don't think being a sysadmin at MIT is enough to be notable. But he has collected a fair amount of press for his work at One Laptop Per Child and for networking Patmos, and was keynote speaker at several conferences. So I think he squeaks by on WP:GNG grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep basically per David Eppstein. I'm seeing a fair amount of articles relating to his work with One Laptop per Child, as well as some other information on speaking engagements and interviews with him. Also he's good enough for Hairlebrity so doesn't that count for something? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giggle definitely the first AfD !vote in some time that has made me literally giggle. Wonder if that's a withdraw criteria. Thanks for the laugh. StarM 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment clearly not notable per NPROF given his academic track record, but maybe through his general reception in popular media. However, general media reception is not evident from the article - where are these media articles about him? He is mentioned in passing with Nicholas Negroponte but rarely as the main subject. The only article about him I could find was this GearLog article, so I dont think we can claim widespread reception in popular media. Also talks at academic conferences are not enough by themselves to make a person notable in general. --hroest 03:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NFOOTBALL, he has been on the roster for a premier national league team (MIT CS/IT), he might not be an MVP, but he has played for many seasons very successfully and achieved the notable award of being Director of Computing for MIT Media Lab.  // Timothy :: talk  19:00, 15 March 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) 03:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mohammad (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Hyderabad, Sindh cricketers or similar Has played 2 FC matches, but I could find no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, is deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rugbyfan22 please correct your redirect target as this one is from Hyderabad, Sindh. Störm (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage, only wide-ranging databases consisting of scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Also fails a strict interpretation of WP:CRIC (which by consensus is overly permissive), since the Patron's Trophy was not the "highest level of domestic competition" at this time. No suitable merge/redirect target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough significant coverage. Pilean (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage is weak and Notable reliable sources not found about this cricketer. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough coverage to meet Wp:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Matondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

strong NFOOTY fail and I'm seeing little evidence of GNG Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a footballer that has spent most of their career in the amateur level in Ireland, by the looks of it. Best source found online is this match report. A ProQuest search shows that he gets his name checked in the Drogheda Independent from time to time but no actual WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom. fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Giverin (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:NFOOTY as Belgian Second Division was not fully professional when Luke Giverin played for Royal Antwerp. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG either and the only article which links to this is 2016–17 Central Coast Mariners FC season although he does not appear to have ever played for. Article has been twice deleted before for similar reasons. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Possible G4? GiantSnowman 09:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NFOOTBALL. Pilean (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, as fails WP:GNG. There are some independent sources, but they look to either be local news coverage, or just interviews. GiantSnowman the last deletion discussion was 8 years ago, so I doubt that this current version is very similar to the version that was deleted, so I guess G4 doesn't apply. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 11 March 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) 03:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Condemned (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. First links when I google searched were to www.metal-archives.com, which is not a RS. The rest of the first five pages are social media, metal zines or sales sites. No RSes in the group. Only user reviews as sputnikmusic.com. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is the only decent source I found. While I have found some album reviews, they are featured on these metal zines. The cited sources are either these metal zines, a promotional Blabbermouth piece, the Zero Tolerance one is not even available, and I don't know how much Terrorizer covers them (though I have a suspicion that said coverage is short or just a section). And finally, we have the external links which do not establish notability whatsoever. Searching is also difficult because there is a brutal death metal band with this name with the guy from Cephalotripsy, and the words tend to appear separately or not in the band's context, so it is recommended to search with the albums to specify that we are searching for this Condemned. Even though, if searched with the albums, it returns only the standard unreliable stuff. They have also released one studio album, and if I know right, a band needs to release two before they can qualify for a WP article. Of course, there are cases when a band released only one studio album, and they have gotten significant, reliable coverage, but Condemned did not as they are underground. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. That source seems to, on fist glance, fail RS as it has no author. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metal.de is usually considered to be a reliable/decent source as I have noticed. While I have used it around huwiki as a source, I wasn't sure about its reliability (since it isn't present on WP:ALBUMAVOID), but then I was told it is reliable. But I really don't know anymore. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources fails in passing WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Ashleyyoursmile! 20:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Lacks Reliable Sources . Alex-h (talk) 08:53, 10 March 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) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hip 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)

Non notable minor record label that is now defunct. Tagged since 2009.

PROD removed due to "I found sources (not surprising given it is Stax-related)", but none were actually added.

Also, the notability tag was not removed, so let's decide once and for all if this is notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak Keep I have added a host of refs, though not two SIGCOVs which would be needed for N:Corp, still think they are an interesting off shoot. There maybe more paper refs as many music chat rooms seem to find them an interesting label. If not kept would recommend merging into Stax Records.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I de-prodded the article) Although I hold GNG/NMUSIC #5 is the most appropriate guideline we have for historical record labels (as producers of art, as opposed to ongoing concerns which are prone to spam) significant coverage in Billboard, 26 Nov 1966, page 3 (already in article), as well as Soulsville, U.S.A.: The Story of Stax Records By Rob Bowman · 2011" not currently in article, and Respect Yourself: Stax Records and the Soul Explosion by Robert Gordon (barely used in article). Unfortunately most of what I need is hidden and in COVID times I don't have access to a library which probably holds these titles, but the index and previews demonstrate coverage of Hip Records equate to more than passing mentions. Discogs as a source needs to be removed, it is used as SYNTH, and isn't reliable anyway. The Billboard June 29, 1968 article, though useful, is not significant coverage on Hip. The Scram magazine is also not significant coverage. The Mansfield book begins to approach significant coverage, but it isn't there. I can't find the Rock Candy Magazine copy, so I am unable to judge whether the coverage is significant. My only result in newspapers.com is The Rock Island Argus (Rock Island, Illinois) 25 Oct 1969, a casual mention again. [6] provides no significant coverage. Global Dog Productions, a discography with editorial oversight, gives a 45rpm discography, which is significant coverage. That what I've been able to find in my search. There are four instances of significant coverage, meeting any definition of Wikipedia notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Three book sources and the Billboard source are reliable and independent and show significant coverage, and makes it notable. Offline sources are likely to exist that can also count towards notability. --Ashleyyoursmile! 21:40, 9 March 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) 12:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aurra Bhatnagar Badoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Less sources, does not meet criteria. DasSoumik (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unable to find RS to support notability. Vikram 08:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Times of India is not RS and the India Today article is a puff piece. Not sufficient to establish notability. Vikram 10:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep has some RS, secondary in depth sources that cover her independently also she is just 9. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We have tended to delete child actors' articles' unless there is clearly significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 10 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wynn Irwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of any notability. Only ref is a mention in a book of obituaries. Searches reveal little better. Appeared to have been a steady bit-part film actor who never hit the big time. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he had very small roles, often red shirts, in major films. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep regular on one show and additional roles in other shows and films. I'm seeing results in archives. I will need the rest of the day to add them. Please don't close as delete. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I added some sources. He had multiple roles of note. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have revisited the refs, courtesy of Ancestry's clippings service, and I suspect Wynn Irwin would not thank the reviewing critics. I doubt he was happy about his reviews when he was alive. Now, they don't add anything of significance to notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, wrong, reviews and feature articles add plenty to notability. Your comment about perceived negative reception has nothing to do with notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, would seem to meet GNG through [7], [8], [9], and numerous mentions (in less detail) in reviews of works he acted in. The quality of the reviews is irrelevant. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with GNG, possibly also enough to meet NACTOR. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)strike !vote of sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FlyboyExeter. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eddie891. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe he meets the GNG from the coverage Eddie891 found. Not sure if he meets NACTOR, but is probably close to it for his role in the movie Dirtymouth (where he is 3rd billed), and a few TV roles seem notable enough like Lotsa Luck (series regular) and Hart to Hart (recurring role in 10 episodes). GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG pass doesn't require SNG pass. Only one criteria needs to be met. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 17:32, 14 March 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) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cezary Paszkowski (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 tagged for notability since 2015 and has no sources. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cupper52, what about WP:BEFORE ? Quick search on Google Books gave me several mentions of him as a painter. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if he has works in museums, as the article says, then he is notable via WP:NARTIST. There are a few good sources in Google books as well (example). Possibly (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, I have trouble verifying the collection holdings. The exhibition list doesn't convince me either. Kunst Dichterbij, in Breda? The BVB Volksbank in Bad Vilbel? I don't think so. Vexations (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: you might be on to something there. I just checked four museums listed here, and none had his work. That page also lists him as a musician? Possibly (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Google books" hits are actually articles from art magazines. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There are possible some in-depth coverage, e.g. judging from snippet "Sztuka ( Poland ) , vol . 10 , pt . 6 ( 1985 ) , p . 36 - 7 . 1 illus . biog . An introduction to the work of the Polish painter Cezary Paszkowski ( b . 1949 ) is followed by an analysis of his three major series of paintings , which depict the changeable..."[10] . Also, in another magazine, "...Soon it appears that the serigraphy creates new workshop possibilities for him and he can use it effectively to create his individual world . Cezary Paszkowski was eminent in the generation of the seventies . His creative work is faithful to the..."[11]. There are many refs to sales and exhibitions sites and they naturally hype that he is a recipient on numerous awards. In fact, factual sources say he does have a couple awards from exhibitioins and museums (whose notability I am lazy to verify), but without refs to original awards, i.e., their level is unverifiable. Concluding, there are no modern sources and someone has to take pain to go to libraries to write a decent article from the times when he was famous. BTW Polish wp article says he is honorable citizen of New Orleans. His own website has no bragging, only works, meaning he is a decent person  :-) [no argument for notability, just a note of respect] Lembit Staan (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per analysis of sources by LS abive and my own analysis from few years back in the first AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 7 March 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. Despite the fact that the nominator has been blocked indefinite for abusing multiple accounts, the "keep" arguments make sense. The close as "keep" is not because of the sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Choice 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)

This is just like a promotional Article. Nothing more. And also fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG. JaiMahadev (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator is blocked/banned. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 12:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nothing promotional about this article at all, the nomination is false Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whatever the case is about the existence of promotional material or not, there clearly isn't the needed sourcing for this to pass WP:NORG, because news stories about a schools regulating buses and cutting down on junk food just don't. I'm not seeing anything else that does either. So, based on that the article should be deleted. Unless someone can provide three good, non-trivial references. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep erroneous nomination by an outed sock puppet. If we discover it in time, I don't think socks should have standing to start AfDs. SportingFlyer T·C 22:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's kept just because of the sockpuppeting I'll probably re-nominate it. So it's a mostly a matter of do we want to evaluate ot on the merits now or later. Also, I'm pretty sure sockputting doesn't make any other type of edits null and void. Like if a sockpuppet adds a good paragraph to an article that has a solid reference it doesn't automatically get reverted and wiped from Wikipedia. The punishment is banning someone for doing it. Not setting Wikipedia back. So I don't see why AfDs should be any different. Otherwise, it's punishing the quality of the platform. Not the person who did it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: The nomination itself seems suspicious. Nothing seems promotional in this article and I have found plenty of sources to establish notability. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 11:24, 10 March 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) 03:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlake Hotel, Jakarta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced since it was created six years ago. Searching finds no in-depth coverage in independent RS. Although searching is complicated by the number of hits in hotel booking sites, I didn't see anything else usable as a ref. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG MB 21:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MB 21:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MB 21:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not all hotels are notable just because they can be verrified to exist. With this article having no sources we cannot even verrify its existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BUILD, and WP:RS. Although "five star" hotel sounds nice, it's not quantifiable outside of countries that have actual rating systems (such as France). As a building, there's no evidence it's notably tall or historic. As far as sourcing, there's zero book mentions, three (3) hits on Google news (primarily "free press"), and zero newspaper articles on Google. I can find no evidence this hotel has ever been reviewed or noted in an English travel guide. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 10 March 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. Daniel (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No third-party sources listed to establish notability. This sounds like an article drafted in order to promote the book. I can't tell if this is the product of paid editing or the product of someone who is weirdly enthusiastic about the book. -- Beland (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:NBOOK per reviews: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], p500, etc. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- We cannot have an article on every book. However, the author is a respected journalist, writing about a topic relevant to foreign affairs; it has at least three newspaper reviews. I have not examined those identified by Eddie, but they mostly look like academic ones. The book is now about 15 years old, which means that it may be due for a new edition, but age for a work of this kind is not necessarily a reason for declaring it new useless. Anyway, if it was notable when published it probably still is. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron, I'm confused, why would their being academic reviews be a problem when considering NBOOK? All that is required is "two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" last I checked Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews listed above and in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews. If anything it tries too hard to show significant coverage and the article can be trimmed to have less long quotes. (But that's not an AFD issue.) Archrogue (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As multiple reviews above have it meeting book notability requirement. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 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) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photojournale Connections Across A Human Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability tag has been on the article for several years, has no sources. -- Beland (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While the concept of the book is very nice, it is a non-notable self-published book, that doesn't meet our criteria for WP:GNG. I looked online for reviews to see if there is something to substaniate sigcov, but couldn't find anything. If enough sources materialize, I'm willing to rethink my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete found nothing to indicate notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per above sources fails WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Noah ^💬 16:35, 12 March 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. AfD Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 14:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:TOOSOON, player has played only one match for St Mirren F.C. in 2021 and looks not notable enough per WP:NFOOTBALL — Amkgp 💬 19:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 19:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 19:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the player passed WP:NFOOTBALL a few hours ago, making his debut in the top tier of Scottish football. We give leeway in such cases because of the likelihood that they will build on such appearances. Deleting articles that only just pass the SNG should only really apply in cases where the player has been playing outside of the professional level for several years and is extremely unlikely to ever play at that level again. Otherwise, we will just end up AfDing every single player on the day that they make their debut and it would get silly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Spiderone. Being St Mirren's youngest player, there will undoubtedly be SIGCOV of him soon. Also, he passes the SNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He's passed the notability guidelines you cited by playing in a fully professional league. JonnyDKeen (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, meets NFOOTBALL. Nomination is fundamentally flawed and shows a deep misunderstanding of NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there is an increasing consensus to delete articles on players whose only claim to notability is one very brief professional appearance and whose professional career is clearly over, but nominating an article on this basis within hours of a player making his debut is clearly nonsensical -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Withdraw nomination per discussion above. — Amkgp 💬 14:20, 7 March 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. Daniel (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond MacDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources are not WP:RS Jenyire2 19:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 19:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jenyire2, well I would not call the official homepage of the University of Edinburgh a non reliable source. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:SIGCOV, per nom. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I agree with CommanderWaterford, per WP:NPROF it is sufficient to use University resources as these are sometimes the only resources we have. So the question is does he pass SIGCOV or NPROF, to me it seems like he may potentially be noteable as an artist. --hroest 03:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (with the caveat that this is well outside STEM so Scopus analytics may be less accurate/informative/relevant, and my arbitrary cutoff of 10 papers may be inappropriate as a threshold for researchers in his field). Comparing MacDonald to his 30 coauthors with 10+ papers, plus 30 authors of the most recent articles in his field that cite him, he seems to be well above the median and around average in regards to citation metrics: Total citations: average: 2217, median: 902, MacDonald: 1894. Total papers: avg: 77, med: 51, M: 78. h-index: avg: 18, med: 15, M: 23. Highest citation: avg: 349, med: 126, M: 211. JoelleJay (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per David, and after going back over the professional positions of the most Scottish collection of names I have ever seen (his coauthors), I'll upgrade to keep as it seems he is indeed around the top tier for impact in his field. JoelleJay (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You can pick out his scholarly works on Google Scholar by searching for author:raymond-ar-macdonald — I thought at first that this included false positives, but he really does seem to be highly cited both on musical identity and on pain sensitivity. His highest-cited work, Musical Identities, is actually an edited volume, so it should not count for as much. But he has another eight publications with triple-digit citations, I think easily enough for WP:PROF#C1. As well as multiple edited volumes, he is also coauthor of a new authored book, The Art of Becoming: How Group Improvisation Works; I didn't find reviews, so there's no second pass of notability through WP:AUTHOR, but that is easily explained by the book being too new for the reviews to have appeared. He may also pass WP:MUSICIAN; I'm not so familiar with that standard, so I'm not going to try to guess whether he does, but coverage of his performance can be found by web and news searches for "Raymond MacDonald" "saxophone", and [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] look like significant coverage, at least. Perhaps the nominator and first !voter were intimidated by all the search results for other Raymond MacDonalds, but some evidence of WP:BEFORE would have been helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The citations look solid for WP:NPROF C1. WP:NAUTHOR looks a little unlikely to me, but reviews sufficient for WP:NCREATIVE for his recording work appear to exist. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he passes WP:NPROF criteria 1 as defined by very well cited works as shown by google scholar so he deserves to be included and have the article improved in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:21, 13 March 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. TNT case and I'd suggest that any recreation sticks closely to any sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Land Trust Alliance (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 organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NGO. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & a before search links me to mostly user generated sources obviously not independent of the organization. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there, I hope I have included enough links now to additional sources. I edit on Wiki occasionally - and noticed land conservation in Canada has very little presence on Wiki. Most land conservation is happening with the support of the Canadian & provincial governments, through Charities/NGOs who participate in the government program. Nature Conservancy of Canada is the largest and Ducks Unlimited is pretty big. You've also got the three provincial umbrella land trusts, with OLTA being probably the largest. Land conservation is by its nature "local" - you can't conserve land outside your geographic boundaries. But through OLTA, UNESCO reserves are being conserved (Niagara Escarpment), and Canada's biodiversity treaty commitments being met. I created the thumbnail page first and invited others to add content. No one else did so - so I have supplemented and linked to the member groups. I would like to ensure the Project Drawdown page links to OLTA or OLTA members as a Land Sink. Critical to the fight against Climate Change. If Wiki wants to inform readers about wilderness conservation in Canada, I don't think it can do so without pages for the land trusts and umbrella organizations. SabaBPC (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - it seems somewhat absurd to me that this page is being considered for deletion - still. When I first created the page, I included just a thumbnail. Since then, I have added news and other links demonstrating this is an important conservation organization in Canada. Perhaps the original lister can review the revisions and reconsider the non-notability tag. thanks. SabaBPC (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding press releases or mere mentions does not constitute RS. We need in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the organization to substantiate or prove their notability. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I added a couple of more. OLTA is a quasi-government organization. It distributes federal and provincial conservation funds. Even without news coverage, the organization is part of Canada's conservation apparatus - and as the umbrella organization of many notable organizations, cannot not be notable. Please note that in 2010, its employees were categorized as provincial employees here: https://www.ontario.ca/page/public-sector-salary-disclosure-2010-organizations-no-salaries-disclose. Here is another link someone could work in: https://www.ontario.ca/page/state-ontarios-protected-areas-report SabaBPC (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article is very promotional. --Devokewater 11:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to clean it up a bit, but it is indeed so promotional that it probably requires WP:TNT. There is evidence of COI on behalf of the article creator.--- Possibly (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick search shows what looks like a bare minimum of reliable media sources. I would support a rewrite of the article. Julius177 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius177, what you may be referencing is bare notability which isn’t one & the same as being notable per standards set at WP:NCORP or WP:NGO, if there aren’t in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, then it shouldn’t be on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created the article, I have no conflict. I have no personal relationship with OLTA. I noticed that Wiki has almost no information about land conservation in Canada. To fix this, wiki needs to have information about the 2 treaties mentioned, information about ECAN, then the 3 regional conservation umbrella organizations, then the main land trusts like Nature Conservancy Canada and Ducks Unlimited. Canada and Ontario give conservation grants through OLTA. If it's a quasi-government institution - a public institution - I can't see why it's not notable. I would really appreciate revisions rather than removing content from wiki, which is necessary to educate the public. SabaBPC (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SabaBPC, as long as the articles you intend to create satisfy our general notability criteria for inclusion then you should have no cause to worry but if not they may be deleted. Remember that Wikipedia isn’t an indiscriminate collection of any and all articles. Perhaps try out the WP:AFC method to submitting articles you may want to create in future? That way you are certain the article would most likely be retained on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2021

@Celestina007, thank you - but I do worry because I suppose I quibble a bit with the guidelines. The phrase "significant coverage", if taken to the extreme, means that popular topics get on wiki, and important topics may not. I became a wiki editor around the time I met Donna Strickland and learned that she failed to get a wiki page - as wiki editors did not believe she was important/notable. So I routinely choose important institutions and individuals (mostly women) who may not be popular. Botany, for example, is not as popular as zoology. It does not sell newspapers - and a page I made about a botanist was nominated for deletion - it was hard to push back. So too with land conservation. Coverage tends to be from within. It isn't that I want to be a wiki editor for the sake of being an editor. I'm trying to make sure important topics are covered - specifically related to climate change - and also to ensure the achievements of women and marginalized groups are featured.

On this particular topic, the questioning of OLTA's notability confuses me because OLTA is basically part of the Ontario government. It's how Ontario is doing land conservation. So even if no one were writing about OLTA in the news, it should be here. I note the guidelines re: government organizations is scant. There appears to be a lack of consensus. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong page? SabaBPC (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think enough exists for a Land conservation in Ontario article, but not one on this organization in particular. Most of the sources are discussing the organization in discussions of larger conservation issues. I feel for these types of organizations because by their nature for the most part the coverage will be "Organization X received a grant to do Y" rather than actual coverage of the organization itself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 16 March 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) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tore Kallstad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disputed PROD: "my lack of norwegian stops me from being able to analyse many of the sources, but there are encouraging sources here - https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Tore%20Kallstad%22&mediatype=aviser" Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and - respectfully - I beg to differ on the sources archived at nb.no, which look to fall short of the sustained, non-trivial coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there appears to be sufficient coverage. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 08:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the only two that look somewhat significant are [27] and [28]; I'm not sure if that's enough Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough significant coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - slightly unconvinced but I think the sources found by Spiderone might just scrape this through GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:39, 11 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Avruskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A not notable Entrepreneur fails WP:GNG Hulatam (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His company's Instagram accounts collectively have over 5 million followers. He has been covered on Rotten Tomatoes, the Hustle, Washington Morning, Trends, and FANSIDED. He is also business partners with Mark Cuban.B.KaiEditor (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither being business partners with a famous individual nor the number of followers on social media is a relevant criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only important criterion is principal coverage of the subject in reliable, third-party sources. Of the sources you listed, only The Hustle and Washington Morning come close, but their "About" pages and editorial policies are not encouraging. None of the other references listed as sources for the article qualify as reliable, third-party sources. Mindmatrix 14:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fascinated to know which of "Rotten Tomatoes, the Hustle, Washington Morning, Trends, and FANSIDED" you think are reliable or WP:GNG-worthy sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Avruskin’s work in television and film is indisputible. The sources are linked on his page and online. Additionally, his business dealings are all covered in Front Office Sports, which is linked in the article. This source is reputable, and it highlights his whole business career. If you have any suggestions on how to improve his article, I am all for it and will make the necessary changes, but simply saying the sources are not good enough, is not a good reflection of this article. Thank you for your concern and commitment to making Wikipedia a better place for all of us editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.KaiEditor (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and MindMatrix. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete none of the coverage is the substantial coverage from reliable independent sources that is the connerstone of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, John Pack Lambert. I noticed that you voted against keeping this article. I looked at your logs for March 1, and all you did that day was go through deletion discussions. In every single deletion discussion, you voted to delete the article, which is already a red flag (there were about fifty that you voted on). Additionally, the time stamps show that you are averaging about two minutes per article, showing that there is no way you can have a complete understanding of the situation when you practically spend no time looking into it. Just because the person is not a household name does not mean that they are not notable. Also, you have had about fifteen articles speedily deleted in February 2021, which makes me wonder if you should really be voting in these discussions. I mean this in no disrespect, but I implore you to slow down and learn more about these individuals. Thank you; I know you have good intentions. B.KaiEditor (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• B.KaiEditor, If they are not notable then the vote will be delete. Please stop judging and criticizing others as it's against Wikipedia policy. Hulatam (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That was nothing personal; don’t get my message twisted. I was stating the obvious, and I have nothing against this individual. I find it quite disrespectful when one judges without knowing the whole and in turn, totally disregarding my hard work and research. That is not appreciated. I would never attack someone because of their personality. I recall I said, “I mean this in no disrespect." I am not trying to make enemies, and this doesn't need to be argument. I was just sharing my findings, which I thought to be relevant. I am sorry to stir up any trouble; that was never my intention. B.KaiEditor (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page should be kept. This page on Avruskin seems to pass WP:GNG because there are significant sources cited in his page an online that are independent of the subject and deemed to pass WP:RS. Because the subject of this pages passes WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG, it should be kept. Jonathan170 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, no indication of notability. --hroest 22:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough. There are plenty of sources that provide enough context to show his notability, even if it is small. There are plenty of other bio articles that have far less notable individuals. The sources back up the article information, so there are no issues involving living people bio violations. Sure, there aren’t dozens of mainstream sources, but that doesn’t mean the person isn’t notable. Not everyone notable interacts on mainstream platforms. I’d prefer to keep and just modify the structure to make it a sound a little less promotional. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 05:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. There is broad but very shallow coverage in less than reliable sources. I know something about gaming law in North America, and I've never heard of this person or their business. By every indication, this is a run of the mill business person. In 2021, it is untenable that a person could assert that Wikipedia should have no standards for inclusion. I am not a total deletionist, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The references here are not reliable sources for the purposes of meeting WP:GNG — GNG does not just indiscriminately count up the footnotes and keep anybody who has surpassed an arbitrary number, but tests the sources for their reliability (e.g. you can't use blogs), their independence of the subject (e.g. you can't use press releases self-published by his own employers, or the directory entries of his own films in the catalogues of film festivals they've screened at), their depth (i.e. it's not enough that his name gets mentioned in a source, if said source isn't about him in any meaningful way), and the context of what they're covering the person for (i.e. you can't use Q&A interviews in which he's the person doing the talking, but not the thing being spoken about). Literally the only footnote here that actually comes from a legitimately reliable or GNG-worthy media outlet is a CBC Radio hit (#9), but that's present only to verify a stray fact about somebody else whose name happens to be present in the text, and isn't about Aaron Avruskin for the purposes of actually helping to establish his notability. GNG requires real journalism about him in real media, not just any web page you can find that happens to have his name in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Bearcat. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:40, 14 March 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 Takanawa#Notable sites. Daniel (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stone wall in Takanawa seashore (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 establish notability under WP:NBUILD (not a national historic site). Failed to find reliable sources in English and Japanese. Allanlw 04:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Allanlw 04:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a stub, and not very well written. The title should perhaps be something like "Historical Takanawa seawall". (In English we assume historical walls are made of stone). I could not immediately find "official" (text) sources, but this is mentioned in a number of sensible-looking blogs, and for example there is a "proper printed book" sign: photo from blog. (This is a photo of a local government publication, which is a WP:RS.) Imaginatorium (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Takanawa#Notable_sites per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for now with the option of later re-creation. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 10 March 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) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girideepam Bethany 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)

There's nothing sourcing wise to justify this being notable. This article has sat for 12 years with no sources at all, which is a very clear violation of our verifiability rules. A quick google search turned up no reliable sources at all. JaiMahadev (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator is blocked/banned. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 12:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since the school is clearly not notable and therefore fails WP:NORG. There doesn't even seem to be the usual trivial news story sources that a lot of schools have. Not that it would matter if did. Since their has to be more then passing mentions. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 27 February 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) 03:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delta 8 (brand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Of the three sources, two don't mention this company specifically and the first is a puff-piece interview. Does not meet GNG. Written by a SPA, probably COI, and is a declined AFC. May even qualify for G11 CSD. MB 02:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MB 02:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MB 02:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - completely WP:PROMO, but has received recent coverage in the NYT and NYP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I rejected this one at AFC. It's a tricky one to verify and do WP:BEFORE on because Delta-8 is both a chemical (of which there is sigcov) and a brand (of which there does not appear to be sigcov). This particular article is just about the brand. The three sources in the article I evaluate as follows: #1 is an interview so not independent. #2 I didn't evaluate yet, but am willing to evaluate if somebody quotes the line where Delta 8 the brand is mentioned. #3 does not appear to mention delta 8, therefore not significant coverage. The two sources in the comment above I evaluate as follows: #1 The NYT article doesn't mention the brand at all, only the chemical, so no significant coverage of the brand. #2 The New York Post is not a reliable source, per WP:RSPSOURCES. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, and the analysis by Novem Linguae. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-per Novem Linguae.-KH-1 (talk) 23:28, 13 March 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. Noting that CSD G5: pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, is also applicable. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by individuals (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've been party to various "is this a meaningful list or isn't it" debates, but I reckon this takes the biscuit. WP:LISTCRUFT -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it isn't a meaningless list, the list isn't intended to be only a simple list of links, but should include the number of works to every entry, thereby allowing a comparison of lifetime production. I think my original inspiration was Wittgenstein "genius" but only published 1 book during his lifetime, compared to, for example, Picasso who was prolific. John B123, Rodw reviewed the article and didn't think it was needing deletion, so your opinion is currently in a minority (probably) of 1:3. Perhaps you'd like to refer to Chunking (psychology) "...individual pieces of an information set are broken down and then grouped together in a meaningful whole...", I couldn't think of any other meaning to "biscuit" than dog-food (with biscuits) (I don't own a dog), or biscuits (human biscuits), I don't own any either, and don't want to (sorry to be flippant) i am uniquepw (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing notable or defining about the entries in this list, and thus no need for it to exist. Suggest, based on history and articles under discussion, creator take a pause to learn more about Wikipedia policies before diving into creation. Courtesy pings to John B123 who are mentioned above. StarM 18:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reading further into their cited reason for creation makes me endorse the second half of my comment. The issue is not Tolstoy v. Leo Tolstoy (as in disambiguation needed), which seems to be the creation reason. Courtesy @PamD: StarM 19:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: "nothing notable or defining about the entries in this list, and thus no need for it to exist." the subject is "productivity" "works" ---> number of works i am uniquepw (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the list would be useful because by seeing numbers of works produced: for example Wittgenstein produced 1 published philosophical work in his lifetime + "genius" compared to Pablo Picasso - who produced 1000's, people could identify patterns of causes to different productivity - the defining aspects are: creativity & productivity i am uniquepw (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC) correction after signature i am uniquepw (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

btw @DoubleGrazing: Crufts < ---> WP:LISTCRUFT "biscuit" ----> sorry about your biscuit, it wasn't me honestly i am uniquepw (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC) correction after signature i am uniquepw (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: your biscuit was taken (the guy had flees, he must have taken it and ... (had fleas) - I don't fleas, and I never have i am uniquepw (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC) pinged after signature (the only thing I have done needing an apology, because I'm not guilty, by rights of ... my tale is true, I am not a roamer (i.e. "indiscriminate") to sniff out i am uniquepw (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC) corrected error after signature ---> "done" (a do-do I don't stink, really - my work is eau de toilette, not a stinky mess) i am uniquepw (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment an AfD discussion is not really the place for the above, Uniquepw StarM 19:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • true i am uniquepw (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC) change after signature i am uniquepw (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copied the article to my sandbox, so it's possible I won't argue if others think deletion is necessary i am uniquepw (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge to List of everything on Earth) per WP:SALAT: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". Hopelessly indiscriminate. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• i am unique pw is moving the goalposts. How numerically prolific an individual is - something not explicitly specified as a criterion or implied in any way by the article title - is a rather meaningless statistic. As Gimli would say, the Sistine Chapel ceiling "still only counts as one" work, the same as the three-word poem "Lines on the Antiquity of Microbes". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so I agree the scope is too broad and decided to divide the article to list of fine art works, list of scientific writings, list of fictional writings, list of philosophical writings - based on number of works, lifetime, years active ... within my sandbox i am uniquepw (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are a lot of Category:Works by creator. Category:Philosophical works by writer, you got list of works by painters, writers, filmmakers, and others. List of works by Stephen King is on the list. Every single writer who has enough work to have a separate article to list it all could be on this vague list. Doesn't seem to serve any point as it is now. Not sure if this navigational list can be turned into anything useful. Dream Focus 23:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SALAT. Far too broad of a topic for a list. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too broad for this website to handle. Mohanabhil (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too broad as per WP:SALAT. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This would include many, many thousands of notable works by hundreds of different authors. This is a list of lists that lacks clear, specific inclusion criteria. One link took me to a list of buildings by the same architect. In principle, it could include hundreds of bibliographies and discographies, plus some filmographies for directors. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per WP:SALAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - also, article was created by a sock of Whalestate, who has now been blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Onel5969, I wondered whose sock that was as he was quacking. I've !voted so I won't delete it. StarM 17:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Dickson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was deleted about three months ago for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; this still applies despite what's written in the article. The Scottish Championship is not listed at WP:FPL so his 26 min appearance doesn't pass the guideline (see Soccerbase and Soccerway). In terms of coverage, I'm seeing a few hype pieces in Rangers News but nothing really in independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY currently. Not to mention this article has no sources. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Without sources, unverifiable against either general notability or association football notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1. possibly restore the orginal page and add sources from todays match????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnelwaq (talk • contribs)

Have you found any sources showing significant coverage? That 26 min appearance was not in a fully professional league so, unless he has received coverage that would allow him to pass WP:GNG, there isn't any point in restoring the previously deleted article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, No sources. fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fully agree with the points made above. No sign of notability at present. Might go on to meet NFOOTBALL, but clearly does not at the moment. Dunarc (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • WTF needs to be done here, I have updated the page. If he does not class as notable then have a look at the rest of the Queen opof the South player pages as I doubt all of them are notable as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnelwaq (talk • contribs)

@Johnelwaq: - the issue seems to be that it has been determined (I don't know the background to this, TBH) that the Scottish Championship ceased to be a fully professional league at the end of the 2019-20 season. Therefore, players who played in it prior to then are eligible for articles, but anyone who has only played in it since then (like Dickson) is not (unless they meet the over-arching general notability guideline, which he doesn't seem to do......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Operation Claw-Eagle 2. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Gara massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:POVFORK of Operation Claw-Eagle 2. This fork uses unreliable sources (for example, Erdogan's state-run media, Anadolu Agency) (compare with sources at Operation Claw-Eagle 2#References and Operation Claw-Eagle 2#Further reading). It portrays the death of 13 hostages (the responsibility for which is still debated) as a "massacre". Compare with how the NYT describes it: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed the United States and opposition Kurdish politicians in an effort to deflect responsibility for a failed rescue operation. [29]. The title "Gara massacre" is not backed by RS, and is highly POV, and perhaps should not be kept even as a redirect. There is nothing to merge because nothing is in this fork that isn't already stated with better sources and more neutrally at Operation Claw-Eagle 2. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]