Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 24

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Negin Parsa (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 singer who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. Furthermore a before search turns up nothing other than links to her website and social media accounts and other hits are in self published or user generated sources Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete precisely per nom. BD2412 T 05:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There sure seem to be a lot of Persian language sources reporting about her and her being banned from performance; is there anyone fluent in Persian who could confirm / deny that they are not reliable sources? Furius (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I think Linking the Persian sources here would be a good idea. Did you mention that most of them pertain to her being banned from performing? That would be largely covered under WP:1E then. However linking those sources here would be a great idea so as to analyze them. Celestina007 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are in the reference section of the article... But ok.

• [1]: Ensaf news . Doesn't load for me.
• [2]: Kandoonews. Discussion of her being banned from performing (video).
• [3] Detailed discussion. Not sure if this counts as an RS.
• [4] Radio Zamaneh (definitely RS) - discussion of the banning.
• [5] - Saed news (looks RS) General profile of her as a musician
• [6] VOA news (looks RS) - Discussion of the banning.
• [7] BBC (RS): mentions her in an article about various signers being banned.
• [8] - General profile, seems to be the same text as Saed news
• [9] - General profile, seems to be the same text again.
• [10] Not an RS
• [11] links to [12] - Isfahan newspaper (definitely RS): On the ban.

Oh, and this event was also reported in the Daily Mail etc: [13] !

A number of the sources on the banning seem to comment on its significance as an indication of current women's freedoms in Iran. If WP:1E does apply, then the event should have an article. It should also be referenced in the article on Censorship in Iran, which doesn't currently mention rules around music at all... Furius (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It also covers a significant amount of news related to the ban on her activities.--Khadempour322 (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article should be speedy deleted, I did check all links provided by Furius it is all about Hamid Askari (famous iranian singer who doesn't article in enwiki), there was an incident during one of Hamid Askari's concert which lead to some media fuss but nevertheless this single incident doesn't warrant notability Mardetanha (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. AgentCody 13:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zainul Abideen(Moradabad Express) (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 reliable source was found in WP:BEFORE. This person fails to achieve notability per WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Dixiku (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its an autobiography too as the username of the author suggests. Dixiku (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non notable autobiography. Could have been A7'ed Chirota (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete because not notable enough.--Hippeus (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If only this article weren't so dreadfully poorly written, and if only it made some attempt to not merely blow the horn for the person (being the article creator, it seems) but actually set the various claims in the context of charity fundraising, social activism, etc., or at least ultra running record breaking achievements (if any), I could get behind it; alas, as it stands, it looks like a shoo-in for deletion, rightly or wrongly (and I'm on purpose not !voting either way). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In the event this article isn't deleted, it should be moved to Zainul Abideen (runner). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG.Darktaste (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was convert into a disambiguation page. I have done the basic framework; can somebody who supported this clean it up and add the appropriate formatting, links, categories etc? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If You Don't Wanna Love Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this song has charted, I could not find any evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. For that reason, I believe this article fails WP:NSONG. While charting may indicate notability, it is more so established through coverage, and I just do not see enough to justify a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what angle you're working, but you seem to have a problem with song articles that do pass WP:NSONG. It appears that your issue is that NSONG isn't tight enough; if that is indeed the case, you should start a discussion on that guidelines talk page first. Better yet, if you think a better suggestion is to redirect rather than delete, why did you open this AfD in the first place? You're contradicting your own suggestion. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not have an angle and I do not have an issue with WP:NSONG. As I already said in the AFD you have linked above, WP:NSONG is already very clear on this matter. Charting may indicate notability, but it does not absolutely prove it. WP:NSONG is very clear on that and it puts more focus on coverage. I do not see how I am being contradictory. In response to the message you posted above, it was part of a larger conversation and I wanted to ask that editor about it since they had recommended a different redirect target. I do not think this song meets the WP:NSONG so I am nominating it. I would ask that you assume good faith and be less accusatory with your messages and overall tone. Aoba47 (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• And to be completely clear, I opened this AFD to get a larger discussion about the article. I was actually going to work on the article, but I could not find a significant amount of coverage so I wanted to open up a discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, then why did you contradict your own previous suggestion? You still seem to interpreting NSONG in your own way. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Aoba47. Erpert Don't get into an argument, vote and state your reasons. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't arguing; chill out. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Though coverage is scarce, I found a couple reliable sources which talk about the song: [14] and [15]. The song is briefly described here as well: [16] and [17]. Not to mention that it is a Top 30 hit in the dance & R&B charts and a minor hit in the Hot 100. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think the sources cited by @Superastig: are enough to prove substantial coverage. I believe this only shows that a limited amount of coverage does exist, and this information can be covered in the album article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Youknowigotsoul is not really a reliable source. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough, IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the consensus seems to be pointing to keep, I request a withdraw for this nomination. I am not fully convinced by the above arguments, since the sources are "scarce" as even Superastig admits, but I will respect the consensus. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Striking out my withdrawal request and will let a consensus form on its own. Aoba47 (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Tamar (album). Of the sources cited above, Rated RNB and You Know I Got Soul are both unreliable and we don't have any evidence that the song is covered in any context beyond a passing mention in The Source. In the absence of significant coverage, it's best to cover it summary style within the parent article. Keep ye faith. czar 05:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab (per Ten Pound Hammer) works too, but there's still content to merge from this stub and, technically, I'd recommend renaming this article If You Don't Wanna Love Me (Tamar song), then merging, then creating a new dab page. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to disambiguation page. The sources added were not reliable, and as of this writing the only sources in the article are from Discogs, Amazon, and the like, meaning that the song does not meet WP:NSONG. However, the 2005 album Loco Motive by Cowboy Troy also contains a song titled "If You Don't Wanna Love Me". While that one likely doesn't meet WP:NSONG either, it was released as a single and seems like a plausible enough search term. Therefore a disambig pointing to each song's respective album, such as is the case with If the Jukebox Took Teardrops, seems like a very logical solution. Pinging the AFD participants (@Aoba47: @Erpert: @SBKSPP: @Czar:) for their feedback on this idea. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually did not think about a disambiguation page as a possibility. That seems like a logical step to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate: Changed my vote per reasons above. While I still stand by my argument, a disambiguate will be the way to go since there are other songs bearing that name. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really have an opinion on the sources that were added since this AfD was opened, but where's the guideline that states AllMusic and Billboard aren't reliable sources? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Erpert: I didn't see anyone contesting the reliability of Billboard or AllMusic in this AFD. Did you post in the wrong discussion? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate As per Ten Pound Hammer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. AfD nominator has decided "KEEP" with renaming, etc. I'm noting this as a keep/withdrawn. Please discuss/sort out renaming, article improvements - and if others desire, mergers and redirects - civilly on the talk page of the article. Thank you everyone. Missvain (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jalaa Highrise (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 building itself is only notable for having been bombed by the IDF as part of the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, and sources only discuss it in relation to that event. The material is covered perfectly adequately at 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis#Al-Jalaa media building bombing, and is better suited there rather than in a standalone article. A redirect to that section could possibly work too, though "Al Jalla Highrise" isn't really a name commonly used for the building (sources usually call it "al-Jalaa tower" or just "al-Jalaa building"). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, Keep, but rename/refocus on the destruction itself. The destruction itself is clearly notable, and as time has gone on since my nomination there has been more to say about the event, and I think probably enough to warrant its own article rather than just a section in the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - change to Redirect to 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis#Al-Jalaa media building bombing or more specific page if it should be created. Per nom. Only one line in the article concerns the building outside of the bombing. If anything, a separate article on the bombing itself could be created, but I am not sure that is warranted, either. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Elishop (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you care to explain why? See WP:POLL  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I forked the article from the German one, apparently the building was one of the tallest in Gaza. Victor Grigas (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might come from a misreading of: [18] Israel has leveled a number of Gaza City’s tallest office and residential buildings, alleging they house elements of the Hamas military infrastructure. On Saturday, it turned to the 12-story al-Jalaa Building... The IDF levelled a 14-story building a bit less than a week ago, for instance, and I don't think being somewhat tall would really effect WP:NBUILDING. For reference, in Gaza City: [19] (note regarding emporis.com: the entries are verified to be correct, but they are nowhere near an expansive list, there are probably more than what is listed there - I think neither of these buildings were on this site, for instance). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a building that is tall would make it notable, per WP:NBUILDING it must have enough source coverage, and other than that bombing there is clearly not enough coverage of RSes about the building itself. User3749 (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Destruction of Al Jalaa Highrise. The destruction of this building will have enduring notability. Reporters Without Borders, and others, are trying to take this case to the International Criminal Court and this alone will make the topic notable (regardless of whether Israeli actions are found by the court to be justified or not).VR _talk 04:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to Bombing of Al Jalaa Highrise or similar, and focus the article on the attack on the building and the reaction. BeŻet (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No refs on the building itself, all were refs of the collapse. Even the image only shows the collapse, this is clearly non-notable. I think as this does not cover notability, this may need to be deleted, but we can also move it or redirect it to the section on the main page about the conflict. User3749 (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I have no issue with creating a Destruction of Al Jalaa Highrise or similarly titled page, and I think this page should redirect there. BUT I am not sure if, procedurally or logistically, it makes sense to simply move this page to that title. The topics are distinct and we can't just change lead to gold. So, I changed my vote to redirect (which I should have done in the first place, anyway). ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The building itself was not notable before the strike. For now it's best to just keep it part of the general article on the conflict. If this turns into a major controversy warranting an article, we should make an article about the "al-Jalaa building strike" rather than the building itself.--RM (Be my friend) 19:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename/repurpose as proposed by some editors above, as it was the building's destruction (rather than the building itself) that received significant coverage from secondary sources. The article isn't off to a bad start, and it's too early to judge if the topic will lack enduring notability. If it turns out we jumped the gun and it will not be possible to develop the article any further, then it can be merged into another article in the future. Though my current preference is to keep the article, I can understand arguments for merging/redirecting, but not deletion.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to reflect the event rather than the building. Dmarquard (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not only notable as one out many buildings bombed: it also had notable tenants that are involved in the conflict as reporters that inform the public about the ongoing events. Nxavar (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against moving the page to a subsection of the "2021 Israel–Palestine crisis" article. Considering the length of the article on the main event, discussing this particular event in a separate article seems very appropriate. Nxavar (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just merged the article's contents with those of the subsection. Nxavar (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Prominent incident. Make it an article about the attack and not the building itself. IRISZOOM (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to something along the lines of "Bombing of the Al-Jalaa building" or "Al-Jalaa bombing". Event is highly notable with extensive media coverage and international political reactions. 64.43.144.9 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to something which mentions the bombing. The details around the back and forth about whether Hamas was present in the building are extensive enough to warrant their own article, I think. Serentty (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to something akin to Bombing of Al-Jalaa Tower as it meets WP:GNG due to it receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If this is the direction the AfD goes (the page is renamed for the event) we can establish consensus on the name via a new poll. —  dainomite   05:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis: WP:1E means that the building fails WP:GNG. Better to move this information to the page about the crisis. Aasim (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:1E is about people, and people are supposed to have a biography. I think it is too much to apply this policy to buildings. Nxavar (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move – The building itself fails WP:GNG, but the destruction of it does, so I think it should be moved to a title which is reflective of the bombing, not just the highrise. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 06:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was a significant incident. User:Moondragon21 19:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis#Al-Jalaa media building bombing, non-notable building only known for being bombed.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is only notable for being bombed, which isn't near enough for its own page. Along with that, there isn't even a proper image of it, only one of the bombing. --Integer123 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The building fails GNG, and the bombing is better covered in the crisis article. Pretty much all of this is available in that article too. Like all things relating to that crisis, there is lots of media coverage on each event. We can't create a spinoff article for every building damaged in strikes, every person killed, every city attacked, etc, in the 2021 crisis. It's not even helpful for readers. All the content on this page is covered in there already. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename - the bombing is itself notable, rendering moot the appeal to extreme argument that we cant have an article for every single damaged building. This specific bombing has been referred to the International Criminal Court, and Reporters Without Borders has called it a war crime. If other bombings meet the same notability and impact requirements then they too should have stand-alone articles. nableezy - 02:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. As a practical matter, the article was largely duplicative of the relevant section of 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, so I resolved the few remaining differences and made everything but the lead a section transclusion. So where do we go from here? One option is we could split out the section in "2021 Israel–Palestine crisis". To me, the sections seems proportional to the article, so I don't think that is necessary. That leaves the other option, redirecting. If the building is notable, consider it a redirect with possibilities. If only the destruction is notable, then it's a redirect to the appropriate section of the larger topic. (We can't delete now, because we need to preserve the article history for attribution since content was copied to "2021 Israel–Palestine crisis".) It seems to me from the comments above that we might be able to get consensus for something like this? --Bsherr (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article on 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis is very large and covers many controversies. I do not see a reason why this must be a subsection. It is more fitting to present the details on a separate article and devote one or two sentences for the event where the subsection is now. Nxavar (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it adds like nothing new? It just dupes the existing article. This building is not individually notable. It's notable for being bombed, and almost anyone who cares will want to know the wider context. If you remove the cookie-cutter reactions and condemnations, the article is literally 2 paragraphs long and can never be expanded, and can be briefly summarised as "A building was bombed. The IDF claimed Hamas was operating out of it. It housed journalists from Al Jazeera and AP." Three sentences of actual information... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the reactions. That is the meat of the story. Nxavar (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar of saints (Church of the Province of Melanesia) (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 some type of localized version of the Calendar of saints. I cannot verify its existence. There's a good chance it probably does exist, but regardless it clearly does not pass WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge some of it into Anglican Church of Melanesia. Probably not the full list, but perhaps a few representative examples. —Sean Whitton / 02:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can't find any reliable source for it. I don't think it will pass the notability guideline by any chance. Mommmyy (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There don't seem to be reliable sources online to verify the claims in the article. Sources might exist, but the lack of significant coverage means the article fails GNG. A merge isn't appropriate since none of the claims can be verified at this time. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom no reliable sources availble to pass GNG. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus largely on the basis that participants could not agree on whether womens.afl is an independent source in this context. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Club Champion (AFL Women's) (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 of this team award to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This probably does pass WP:GNG, but even so it most certainly passes WP:AFL. It is a page pertaining to the best and fairest honour for a club participating in the highest elite AFL Women's league in the world, which makes it notable. It would make no sense to delete this article despite there being 13 others of its kind that are considered notable. Doggo375 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per above. I'm hesitant to assume this nomination was done in good faith. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this coverage from The West and this coverage from womens.afl demonstrate the award meets the general notability guideline. Having said that, I disagree that WP:NAFL grants AFLW awards presumed notability; it only applies to AFLW players and coaches. There's also no basis for assuming this was anything but a good-faith AfD, especially given the paucity of information currently in the article. – Teratix ₵ 07:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The "womens.afl" source is not independent of course, so doesn't indicate any notability. Which leaves us with only the The West Australian source, and one good source is usually not enough to pass GNG. Fram (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your basis for concluding womens.afl is not an independent source? It seems you've simply jumped to conclusions based on its name. – Teratix ₵ 01:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that site is not the official site for the Women's AFL, then that organisation should sue them as impersonators. And if it is the official homepage of the Women's AFL, then, uh, they're not an independent source for commenting on a Women's AFL club award surely? What makes you think this is an independent source? That the award is given by a club, and not by them, doesn't make them an independent source. See WP:COISOURCE: "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting". Fram (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[I]f it is the official homepage of the Women's AFL, then, uh, they're not an independent source for commenting on a Women's AFL club award surely? No, not necessarily. Consider womens.afl's sister site AFL.com.au; prior to 2012 they were essentially the online marketing branch of the AFL, but once a proper editorial staff (AFL Media) were established the site garnered a decent reputation for independence. – Teratix ₵ 10:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They may have gotten a decent reputation for reliability, but independence is decided on a case-by-case basis; a source which may be independent for one subject isn't necessarily independent for another. That they may perhaps be reporting neutrally, even critically, doesn't make them an independent source for enwiki purposes; the facts remains that they are posting about subjects they have a direct (COI) interest in. Fram (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that neutral reporting doesn't define an independent source, but it's strong evidence that the source is independent; after all, the entire reason that Wikipedia generally prefers independent sources over non-independent sources is that independent sources' reporting tends to be neutral, and non-independent sources' reporting tends to be biased. Anyway, what COI is womens.afl even supposed to have? I would understand if it were a club website – obviously there would be an incentive to promote its star players through coverage of the award – but that's not the case here. – Teratix ₵ 12:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is important for WP:V and WP:NPOV, not so much for WP:N. Independent sourcing is important for WP:N though: reporting by a source which has a financial or organisational interest in the subject is not evidence of notability, as it is not a disinterested party choosing to report on this subject and not another. The WAFL has an interest in having a lively website about all aspects WAFL, including players, clubs, club awards, ... It is their raison d'être, their sole purpose (not the website, but the WAFL, its sponsors and supporters, ...). Fram (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is important for WP:V and WP:NPOV, not so much for WP:N. Independent sourcing is important for WP:N though. This presumes a source's neutrality and independence are completely uncorrelated, which is not the case. The fact that womens.afl has reported on the award in a neutral fashion is strong evidence that it is an independent source. The WAFL has an interest in having a lively website about all aspects WAFL. This reasoning seems to portray the AFLW as holding full editorial control over the reporting of womens.afl. However, this does not seem to be the case; womens.afl has proven willing to run articles that are not aligned with the league's interests. Take this example from a couple of weeks ago, when the site dedicated a full article to covering a club president's criticism of a league decision. If the AFLW was completely in control of womens.afl articles, as your argument presumes, would this piece have been published? – Teratix ₵ 09:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into West_Coast_Eagles#AFL_Women's_team. As much as I wish this topic could have its own article (like the equivalent AFL men's award), sadly it currently lacks the coverage to achieve notability. Having said that, there is probably enough coverage now of the women's team in general that it could be split off from the men's team article, if anyone is motivated to do so. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  On what basis do you dismiss the coverage already provided? – Teratix ₵ 11:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Fram above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

[20] is a reliable review, but is the only one (notable author/reviewer, personal blog) and will definitely have opinions. Otherwise not notable. Previously listed for AFD in 2009 and kept as no consensus, the author also does not have a Wikipedia article. Sennecaster (What now?) 15:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (What now?) 15:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (What now?) 15:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am finding a few places where the book is mentioned, but I am not finding any actual coverage or reviews on the book, outside of the one site mention in the nomination. That one review, alone, is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG, and it does not appear to meet any of the other criteria of WP:NBOOK. The previous No Consensus decision at the AFD over a decade ago seems to have largely been based on the claims that there are sources, but none were actually provided in the AFD, and I am unable to find any. The article on the author was deleted by AFD since then, so there is no appropriate place to redirect or merge. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Dayton Daily News review found by Cunard below is good, and the little Star-Telegram blurb is not bad. Those, combined with the one review mentioned in the nomination, are enough to swing this towards a Keep for me. Rorshacma (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see a few mentions in passing, but no reliable reviews, no awards, etc. Not all books are notable, and this one doesn't seem to make the cut. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Orme, Brian (2006-10-08). "A pocket guide to the end of the world". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2021-05-18. Retrieved 2021-05-18 – via Newspapers.com.

     The book review notes: "Jason Boyett, author of the Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse (Relevant Books, one sale for $6.99 at relevantstore.com), attempts to inform people about the study of the 'end times' by looking at the lighter side of the apocalyptic milieu. By coupling relevant doctrine with witty anecdotes Boyett unpacks the oft-heavy topic of the end of the world."

  2. Greene, Amanda (2005-10-22). "6 lessons of any good apocalypse". Star-News. Archived from the original on 2021-05-18. Retrieved 2021-05-18.

     The book review notes: "A glossary of the end. A timeline of the end. Potential Antichrist candidates.  You'll find it all in The Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse: The Official Manual for the End of the World by Jason Boyett. ... But the major difference between this book and other apocalyptic tales like the Left Behind book series is The Pocket Guide doesn't take itself, or the apocalypse for that matter, all that seriously."

  3. Cochrum, Alan (2005-12-17). "Review: Book. Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2021-05-18. Retrieved 2021-05-18 – via Newspapers.com.

     The book review notes: "This book won't help you toward that doctorate in theology, but it's a pertinent – and often impertinent – reminder of humanity's occasional foolishness."

  4. Brief coverage:
     1. Campbell, Kristen (2005-12-17). "Good tidings of groovy gifts. Still searching for a stocking stuffer for your cousin? At a loss for what to give your uncle for the first night of Hanukkah? Here are some suggestions that might tickle your funny bone and warm your heart". Press-Register. Archived from the original on 2021-05-18. Retrieved 2021-05-18.

        The article briefly discusses the book. The article notes: "Small enough to fit in a stocking, this tiny tome is just the thing to have on hand for the holidays. The paperback offers an 'apocalyptionary' in its first chapter and wraps up with the 'armageddon grab-bag,' a chapter filled with "miscellaneous items not long enough for chapters of their own.""

     2. Hernandez, Danielle (2012-03-08). "Birds, Poop and Roadkill: A Field Guide to Field Guides". Wired. Archived from the original on 2021-05-18. Retrieved 2021-05-18.

        The article notes: "This might be the quintessential get-ready-for-Dec. 21, 2012 guide. Jason Boyett writes about potential antichrists, eschatology (apocalyptic theory), and an armageddon grab bag."

     3. Haynes, Mike (2005-05-21). "'Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse' a laugh, a worry". Amarillo Globe-News. Archived from the original on 2021-05-18. Retrieved 2021-05-18.

        The article briefly discusses the book. The article notes: "Jason Boyett trumpets that truth as he begins his Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse: The Official Field Manual for the End of the World, published this spring by Relevant Books. It's just the latest of several books and magazine stories that Boyett, a 30-year-old Amarillo native, has written for Relevant Publishing, whose main audience is twentysomethings. So this Pocket Guide, like most of Boyett's work, had to be cool and well, relevant. It is."

     4. Dean, Brandi (2005-03-26). "Local author pokes fun at Revelation mania". Amarillo Globe-News. Archived from the original on 2021-05-18. Retrieved 2021-05-18.

        The article notes: "Boyett seemed pleased with that reaction to his "Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse: The Official Field Manual for the End of the World - after all, Boyett has a lot of fun at the cost of the end-times craze Jenkins and his co-author, Tim LaHaye, have helped create. Then again, he also credits that craze with the interest that has led to his publisher pre-selling 30,000 copies of the book."

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

  Cunard (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  The book has received three reviews: Dayton Daily News, Star-News, and Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The book has received additional brief coverage in several other sources.

  Cunard (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Every one of the reviews is unusable. Local newspaper reviews of books are not a RS, and the Wired review is trivial. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anything in WP:NBOOK about local newspaper reviews being unusable or unreliable. The Fort Worth Star Telegram has a circulation of 170,000 for a city of 700,000 so is more of a regional source than a local source in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- merely reviewed in a few local papers. These merely prove that it exists, not that it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it is reviewed in secondary sources, which together seem enough to fulfill WP:GNG to me. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as nominator; thank you Cunard for doing a search through newspapers.com, which I do not have access to. I now support a Keep despite being the nominator due to having more SIGCOV in reliable and non-local sources. Is it best to withdraw or let the relist run to a keep? This is my first nomination. Sennecaster (What now?) 15:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sennecaster:, as there are some delete votes the discussion must play out until it is closed by an admin according to their judgement of when the discussion has been resolved or ebbed out, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atlantic306! I'm still really unsure of how AfD works, I've learned a lot from this one though :) Sennecaster (What now?) 23:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard's sources demonstrating GNG is met. (Oh, and per WP:Wired rule) Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND; closest of the criteria is #11 ("Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network"). A quick search shows that the band received a few plays on BBC Radio 1, a national station, but this isn't the same as being placed in rotation, which implies being added to a playlist and receiving regular/repeated plays, which doesn't seem to be the case here. MIDI (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Getting mentioned every 1 or 2 years definitely isn't being played in rotation. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete. Not really notable in the context of a global, general encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No indepth sources available. fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom no indepth coverage available hence fails GNG. Okaye Agongo (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OSS 117: Alerte Rouge en Afrique Noire (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:NFF, nothing found to pass GNG. Per NFF, "... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Kolma8 (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It looks like translated coverage from French outlets such as Le Figaro, BFM TV, and AlloCiné are coming from different stages of the production and post-production. Enough so to meet WP:NFF. -2pou (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to have enough sources in French outlets availble to pass notability bar. Zackdasnicker (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with the previous two editors about French-language sources being sufficient for WP:Notability. See e.g. the sources at fr:OSS 117 : Alerte rouge en Afrique noire. At worst, it could be turned into a WP:DRAFT – it doesn't make sense to have to start over from scratch when the film is released. TompaDompa (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether the subject meets the appropriate notability guidelines, and I can't see one forming if I relisted the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Graham Hurd (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'm having some trouble with this article. I am not at all sure that Hurd is, herself, notable. However, I consider the Cynthia Graham Hurd Memorial Scholarship is likely to be notable. Hurd's memory has also spawned the renaming of a library branch; The Cynthia Graham Hurd Foundation for Reading and Civic Engagement has been established in her name as have other items. She also received an award from the Congressional Black Caucus.

These things are self evident and referenced, to a greater or lesser extent, and I do not quarrel with them at all.

My feeling is that the article falls into WP:NOTMEMORIAL as written about Hurd. She was killed in a notable shooting incident, as were eight others. But that does not in and of itself render Hurd to be notable.

Acknowledging that citing other articles is deprecated at AfD, nonetheless the community usually considers that articles about the victims of murders to be inappropriate, but articles about the murders themselves are appropriate as are articles about, for example, foundations in the name of the deceased.

The article should be split, renamed, or otherwise handled, and with sensitivity.

[tl;dr version: Hurd fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG but items created in Hurd's name may well be appropriate] Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It sounds like the event of her death/murder seems to be notable, whereas she might not be herself. So renaming the article to Death of Cynthia Graham Hurd might be the solution. Silverseren^C 20:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am in the process of revising the article and adding more sources, and based on my research so far, it appears that it is her life and legacy that is notable, and renaming the article may not be appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after reviewing the sources, revising the article, and adding more sources, I think there is at minimum, WP:BASIC notability, including due to sources such as the South Carolina Department of Education (and partners) 2021 feature of Hurd, which is part of The South Carolina African American History Calendar, designed to provide "educators, parents, and visitors a method of identifying African American role models for all youth and honoring notable African American achievers with ties to South Carolina." In addition, there is a 2020 local NBC article discussing her and her legacy. There is also a 2021 Associated Press analysis that includes reporting on her family and mentions her as "Cynthia Graham-Hurd, a beloved public librarian who was just shy of her 55th birthday, died huddled under a desk in the church’s fellowship hall. She had been shot at least a half-dozen times." However, most of sources seem to focus on her life and legacy, including 2015 NBC News coverage of her funeral, as well as local news coverage of her funeral, and a 2015 Washington Post interview with her brother Malcolm Graham. In addition, in 2015, the Guardian covers the renaming of the regional library and the establishment of the Foundation, and local news continued to follow its progress in 2020. These multiple independent and reliable sources all seem to provide support for notability that is overall focused on her. Beccaynr (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Charleston church shooting (as Cynthia Hurd already does) per WP:VICTIM. She is not notable independent of the shooting that took her life. Post-2015 coverage is sporadic and weak. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will be redirecting have redirected Cynthia Hurd to Cynthia Graham Hurd. I have not yet decided how I am !voting on the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In 2016, the South Carolina General Assembly also passed a resolution to "celebrate the life of Cynthia Graham Hurd, librarian, community servant-leader, devoted family member, respected colleague, and friend to the many citizens of Charleston whose lives she influenced in a lifetime of service," that includes detailed biographical information. WP:VICTIM states A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person, and not only does she appear to be known for more than her connection to the criminal event, the Charleston church shooting article does not appear capable of incorporating the available encyclopedic material relating to her, including due to its limited focus on the victims. Beccaynr (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The rule is NOTMEMORIAL. The other things she is known for are not significant enough that there would be any potential for an article except for being a victim. It always saddens me when I feel I have to !vote delete for a serious well-meaning and skillfull attempt to write articles on estimable useful and well-regarded people, who nonetheless are not notable, and get press only because of an intersection with something that very much is (usually, but not always, tragic). But if we keep articles like this we're no longer going to look like an encyclopedia, as there is no lasting notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also found another named scholarship from the University of South Carolina and 2020 sources discussing the yearly events that have happened in honor of her legacy: 1 2, 3, and a Washington Post report on her funeral. The coverage appears to be WP:SUSTAINED, and she seems unlikely to remain a low-profile individual, due to the ongoing library exhibits/programs/events, her foundation activities, and the various scholarships as well as the award in her name. Beccaynr (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, especially WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I also could think of a redirect CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She and her legacy are clearly notable and have received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources over a period of years. For example the Washington Post ran an entire article about her. This entry meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. She isn't notable just for being a shooting victim but for her life inspiring young readers and being a community leader before the shooting and for inspiring a substantial legacy after it. If we have an urge to merge then by all means the shooter is only known for one thing and I have no idea why we have a lengthy entry for someone who isn't known for anything else. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Washington Post article came out three days after the shooting, so that at least doesn't support your contention. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This Washington Post article was published ten days after she died, and includes in-depth biographical information about her childhood, education, family, and career. Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Beccaynr (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So? That happens all the time. Per WP:SUSTAINED, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." I don't expect Zhu Keming to get an article, despite being praised by the BBC, CNN, Newsweek, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Though the article has a number of sources from years after her death in 2015 that are entirely about her, her life, and the legacy she left behind. Silverseren^C 00:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources published after 2015 include: South Carolina General Assembly (April 28, 2016), The South Carolina African American History Calendar (2021), Remembering the life and legacy of Cynthia Graham Hurd (South Carolina Daily News, 2020), The kindness of Cynthia Graham Hurd lives on five years after the Charleston Church Shooting (NBC2 Charleston, 2020), Carolina Strong Book Drive will honor Cynthia Graham Hurd (WCSC5, 2017), CCPL Honors Cynthia Hurd & the Emanuel 9 (ABCNews4, 2016), Charleston County Public Library to honor Cynthia Graham Hurd (ABC4, 2020), Charleston Co. Public Library branch honors Emanuel AME shooting victim with portrait (WCSC5, 2018, "The event was part of a series of events called "Kindness Week" to honor Hurd and her philosophy of always trying to be kind."), Between the Stacks: Celebrate Cynthia Graham Hurd (Moultrie News, 2020). The 2015 coverage was also about more than her death and funeral and included national and international coverage from USAToday and the Guardian about the Foundation and library renaming. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements, and objectively, she appears notable, based on the sustained coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, as well as the "naming of academic awards" (e.g. as suggested by WP:NPROF criteria 1) after her. Beccaynr (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There has been significant coverage of the subject by reliable secondary sources since her death. It seems to me that the opposition to listing her is imposing a de facto distinction between different types of notability that have no actual basis in policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Forgeard (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 BLP that was until recently redirected to Nelk. I think restoring the redirect would be fine, or if not the article should be deleted, as available sources absolutely don’t meet WP:BASIC. Mccapra (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect to Nelk: Barely found anything about him aside from getting arrested for a prank, an indication of WP:BLP1E. He falls under WP:INHERIT as well. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Besides the arrest, I'm seeing a, few, other, sources, that focus solely on Forgeard, so I think he's no longer a BLP1E case. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are other sources that can be added where Forgeard is headlined.Abobeck11 (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources highlighed above seems to pass WP:BASIC. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Changed my vote per reasons above. Article seems good enough to pass WP:BASIC. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Mining 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)

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The organization has 0 WP:ORGDEPTH. Celestina007 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My rationale for creating this article was because of the red links that previously existed in this article: Empire, Nevada, which links led to the Empire Mining Company. This seemed to me to call for the creation of the article. If you want to restore the red links to the article, your call. A Verbatim Google search for the phrase "Empire Mining Company" yields 18,000 results. See Google search results. Silly-boy-three (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — what are you talking about? If you going to create a standalone article about an organization you must provide reliable sources to this AFD that this organization satisfies WP:NCORP please you are more than welcome to provide reliable sources that discusses the organization with in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the organization. If you can’t understand that then you shouldn’t be creating articles directly to mainspace. Bare in mind that quality of the sources used triumphs over quantity. Please like I earlier stated please do provide to this AFD RS that substantiates and proves the organization is indeed notable. Celestina007 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Your call. I just wanted to address the red links as easily as possible. Silly-boy-three (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This company does not meet WP:NCORP. Despite the website stating that the company was founded in 1910, the reality is that the current operation is named Empire Mining Co. LLC, and it was founded in 2016, search the Nevada Secretary of State website. If the article is not deleted, then it should be updated to reflect that only their website states that they were founded in 1910. I've done quite a bit of research about Empire and I don't recall an "Empire Mining Company" at Empire. Alex Ranson and others discovered the gypsum in 1907, see [21]. The claim was patented in 1910, see [22]. In 1924, Pacific Portland Cement moved their plant from near Mound House [23], near Empire and the Carson River mills. (I'm not sure when the current location was referred to as Empire, I'll have to do some research.) Searching newspapers.com for "Empire Mining" Gypsum finds a few articles from 2016: [24], [25], [26]. However, the articles mention the company in passing, what is notable is that a company is reviving Empire, Nevada. I found no significant coverage of the current company located at Empire that was not really about the town of Empire. BTW - there are plenty of other corporations named "Empire Mining", so be careful when searching. Discussion about the Empire Mining Co., LLC is best covered in the Empire, Nevada article until such time that it meets the four criteria of WP:NCORP. As the name of the company is Empire Mining Co. LLC and not Empire Mining Company, it could be that if this article is not deleted then it should be renamed. Cxbrx (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: If you guys decide to keep the article, then I agree entirely with your helpful suggestions, and will incorporate your research and rename the article if you want. Probably like you, the Nomadland story is what got me interested in this. Perhaps the best solution here would be to 1. Delete the article, 2. Remove link syntax from mentions of the Empire Mining Co. LLC from within the article, 3. Place an external link to the mining company's web-page at the bottom of the page. Silly-boy-three (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references that meet NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 20:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y. V. Krishna Rao (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 politician who fails to satisfy either criterion provided by WP:NPOL a before search failed to turn up anything of substance. Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not read this in detail. But, based on a quick search the works here worldcat, Google Books and the references here jstor1 and jstor2 seems like this article is worth retaining. Would be great to build the article to the next level of detail. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktin, I did observe those, but the problem is WP:SIGCOV isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that just the entire repository of books will meet WP:SIGCOV. I might have to give a read in the next couple of days. Currently busy off-wiki. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, 1966–1978, passes NPOL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Goldsztajn. Mccapra (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NPOL as a state-level legislator. Additionally, Telugu-language coverage, while obviously quite difficult for me to find, does seem to exist: see e.g. this. A native speaker would likely find more. But the NPOL pass is sufficient to establish notability, so we need go no further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm going with keep for this especially with User:BD2412 digging a few things up that might help the cause. Let's improve - feel free to rename the article - etc - and see what you can do. It can always be re-nominated if people feel it's failing to meet our guidelines. Missvain (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Can see no evidence of notability or any attempt to demonstrate notability for this genealogy software. Neither can I find anything online which would prove notability e.g. reliable secondary sources. The article seems promotional, cited almost entirely to Gramps primary sources. Time for article to go. Sionk (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of this Reddit thread, 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}}.

• Keep Gramps is notable as a leading programme for genealogy. In my experience of genealogy software, it is the most advanced tool on any platform, and the only decent one on Linux. This article is not promotional, as Gramps is free and open source. It is not like commercial programmes which have articles on Wikipedia, such as Family Tree Maker and Legacy Family Tree. If the issue is secondary sources, then that should be remedied. --Pakaraki (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gramps is notable as a the only proper open source program for genealogy. Will each of the commercial programmes pages be deleted which have articles on Wikipedia, If the issue is secondary sources, then that should be remedied. My guess is that Sionk is a sock puppet for the commercial programs! 2406:3400:315:C630:A196:E638:A881:DCD2 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't guess. You may disagree with Sionk, but just a few seconds' glancing at that user's editing history shows that that guess is wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple sources available for this including Comparison of genealogy software (almost all linked programs have a WP page), 1, 2. Recommend tagging for improvement or including additional sources instead. Zeus ^{t | u | c} 18:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages such as Comparison of genealogy software are not secondary sources that confer notability on subjects. Ghacks.net is a blog, so not a reliable source. And simply stating (as the first two posters - or one poster logged in and not logged in - have done) that the software is notable, does not confer notability here - proof needs to be provided i.e. reliable independent secondary coverage about the subject. Sionk (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I object to your accusation that I posted the first two comments above. This is not the case and causes me to wonder about the motives of Sionk in this deletion attempt. There is no explanation provided as to why this article is singled out for deletion, but this is not proposed for other proprietary genealogy programmes (Family Tree Maker, Legacy Family Tree) and other open source programmes (ls, tree, strings). These other articles have similar limited number of secondary sources. --Pakaraki (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If those other articles cannot be sourced then you can nominate them for deletion. This discussion is only about this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those other subjects are notable and rightly have Wikipedia articles about them. My point is about this article, that it is inconsistent to single out Gramps, when many other articles have fewer secondary references and are not nominated for deletion. Only a few have been cited here as examples, and I expect there would be a great number of articles of this nature.--Pakaraki (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That's a fairly high bar to set; asking for the notability or otherwise of an open source (non proprietary) piece of software. Do the articles ls, tree, strings need to fulfil that same criteria? GRAMPS has survived in the harshly judged environment of the volunteer community for 20 odd years. It's always been under active development and is included as an installable package under various Linux and BSD Distributions via their inbuilt package managers; Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, to name some. To be included as a Distros default package should count towards its notability. Additionally, it has been ported to macOS and the MS Windows environment. In the opensource community, the porting action alone can be considered as an endorsement of its value and should confer the notability you're asking for. — Graibeard ^(talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same bar that every subject on Wikipedia has to reach. I'd no idea open source software was an exception. Sionk (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. I haven't yet even looked into the notability of this topic, and won't now have time because I have had to deal with such spurious reasons for keeping before getting down to some real work, and need to go to bed now. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Within the genealogical community, GRAMPS is a well-known, free and open-source alternative to the vast array of proprietary programs that are available. Its market share alone, especially for Linux systems, as attested to by consumer surveys, should be reason alone to see it as notable. Further, there are a number of academic and non-academic articles available on the topic, they just need to be added as sources. So if that is the only issue, then I don’t see a reason why this article should be deleted. Indeed, I am wondering why the article’s relevance is put into question in the first place. Genealogy programs are a very niche topic and not exactly newsworthy, so it is perhaps not surprising that news outlets are not eager to publish articles on them. Thonatas (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 1.. Given that the Gramps Project itself maintains two full pages listing articles and reviews, which are readily found, the nominator here should have engaged with and included some of those sources. 2. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) - It needs to be recognized that much of the discourse in genealogy happens in forums and small websites or within equally small society publications. Many genealogy experts operate as sole proprietors; it's the nature of the business and hobby. So one goes to see who is cited by the big names or mentioned at conferences in the field. Eastman, for instance, is "one of the most recognized names in the genealogy world", so his publication that has discussed Gramps on multiple occasions can be classified as "reliable" in the context; one wouldn't rely on his newsletter for information on scientific topics. If one isn't capable of discerning what constitutes a reliable source in a particular field, then one should probably not be nominating articles in that field for deletion on the basis of lacking "reliable secondary sources". At most, it would have made sense to list it as requiring improvement. 3. More sources, including a number of scholarly ones in connection to the topic, have been incorporated in the article. - Jeffrey (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It's many years since I have seen quite so many opinions in an an AFD discussion that consist of special pleading rather than anything to do with sources. Can any of the people giving "keep" opinions above provide some proper independent reliable sources, preferably identifying the best ones, rather than the reference bombing of unreliable blogs and similar junk sourcing that is currently in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hazard a guess that that is because a number of folks (like me) who are simple users of Wikipedia, were shocked into clicking on the discussion and don't know the rules of your game. Perhaps you "insiders" could consider helping us to understand rather than insulting or pushing back.

And I'd hazard a guess that it is largely a response to this post on Reddit. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability and adequate sourcing are two different things and oughtn't be discussed as if they were one. Gramps is notable because it's the major desktop genealogy program running on Linux, for which reason it's included in all the major distros. There are things one could like or dislike about it but my quick reading of the deletion criteria tells me that liking or disliking the product is not supposed to enter into this discussion and my reading of the deletion proposal is that it has. Sionk says "Time for article to go." Well... not too subtle that. Plenty of us might be capable of improving the article, if we knew how one goes about doing that. Bottom line... if you post a highly visible deletion notice, you will draw in folks like me who don't like the idea but who have no understanding of the process or criteria. Presumably, that's why the notice exists. CharliePoole

Well, it's not advisable to join a discussion when you "have no understanding of the process or criteria". This isn't a vote, it's an opportunity for other editors to identify multiple reliable secondary sources that talk about Gramps in depth. In fact two "Keep" contributors above have admitted "Genealogy programs are a very niche topic and not exactly newsworthy" and "much of the discourse in genealogy happens in forums and small websites or within equally small society publications", which suggests non-notability rather than grounds for keeping it. Sionk (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources found: an LWN.net review article, a conference proceedings that has a couple of paragraphs on the Gramps modeling language, a short Gramps review from a software review site, and a review article for Gramps on genealogytools.com that is part 8 of a multi-part article comparing family tree software. The first and last sources look to be in enough depth and reliable enough IMO for marginal notability. The conference proceeding shows that the software has had some impact in the academic community. no1reviews.com looks independent and may or may not be reliable. The Eastman work mentioned above could be considered expert commentary, but reasonable people can disagree on that. Overall, I would recommend a marginal keep. If other editors find it below GNG threshold, then as an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD, I think there is enough reliable sourcing to support an entry in Comparison of genealogy software. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 05:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is download numbers something worth mentioning here? Github: Gramps, SourceForge: Gramps, SourceForge: Gramps Portable, . TheMihle (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but it is not. Please try to emulate Mark Viking here, rather than anyone else who has given a keep opinion that is unrelated to Wikipedia's definition of notability. We need independent reliable sources on which to base our article content. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, rename Gramps (software). Either Grandparent is the primary topic, or there isn't one. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Out of all the sources currently listed in the article, only the LWN.net review may possibly be acceptable. Tellingly, the National Genealogical Society has not reviewed Gramps, although it has commented on several dozens of its competitors.[27] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Genealogical Society itself may be a candidate for deletion--the article is terrible, sourced only to its own publications. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Clarityfiend: It appears that the National Genealogical Society actually has reviewed this product. BD2412 T 04:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well known software that is trusted and used widely Lunacats (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. A Google Books search for "Gramps" and "Genealogy" brings up quite a bit more than I would have expected, given the tenor of those supporting deletion. A search for "Genealogical Research and Analysis Management Programming System" also brings up some sources (possibly not all the same ones). BD2412 T 04:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? All I'm seeing from the first two pages of your search is one hit, for the NGS. The rest of the hits for "Gramps" are just the informal term for grandfather. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd. Are you not seeing mentions in AARP Genealogy Online: Tech to Connect, The Genealogist's Address Book, Graph Drawing and Network Visualization: 24th International Symposium, and Robert Harris Sr (1702-1788) Descendants, Vol 1? I am not suggesting that those are sources for notability (though I think the NGS review is), but it is certainly something that's out there. BD2412 T 05:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also find on Newspapers.com, Peter Wayner, "Genealogy databases help link families", Detroit Free Press (May 5, 2004), p. 2: "More than a dozen different genealogical database programs are available from a variety of vendors. Hall uses the Genealogical Research and Analysis Management Programming System, or, GRAMPS (http://gramps.sourceforge.net). Like other such software, Gramps - which is free - enables people to enter data about their ancestors and produces charts, documents and Web pages from the information". I find it amusing that the newspaper included the URL, and capitalized "Web". BD2412 T 05:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Charlie O'Brien#Personal life. Missvain (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris O'Brien (baseball) (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 leaguer, fails WP:NBASE, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Charlie O'Brien#Personal life, where he is mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NBASE. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Charlie O'Brien#Personal life, per Muboshgu. Rlendog (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Charlie O'Brien#Personal life per above. Zackdasnicker (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism in Bihar (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 subject with no sources. Can't even merge as the facts are not supported by any source. Sonofstar (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG, sources doesn't meet notability criteria. Jaysonsands (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against redirection if/when a Ross mention is added and sourced in Scouts Canada. There currently is no secondary sourcing to warrant a mention. czar 08:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Percy Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Biography (BLP?) of a former chief executive of the Canadian chapter of an international organization, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for organizational chief executives. Winning the organization's own internal awards for its own internal work is not a notability freebie if your only source is the organization's own self-published content about itself -- the extent to which any award counts as a notability-maker for Wikipedia purposes hinges on the extent to which that award does or doesn't get media coverage to establish its significance, and simply using primary sources to verify the award isn't enough. But the only other source being cited here at all was also self-published by the organization, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any independent sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Scouts_Canada#History. --evrik ^(talk) 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or Merge. --hroest 14:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article lacks any indepdent reliable sources that give indepth coverage. As a scouting official any scouting publications are not indepdent enough to show notability. The key to showing that winning the Bronze Wolf makes someone notable would be finding sources that are indepdent of scouting that mention that someone won it. None are presented here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article deleted last year due to WP:UPE. Notability unclear as the reliability of the provided sources should probably be determined by a native speaker, but a quick Google Translate seems to show they are all coverage of the subject winning a musical reality show. If the sources are reliable this would still seem to be a case of WP:BLP1E. nearlyevil665 12:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 12:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 12:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This is not a case of WP:BLP1E. That only applies if the person is a low-profile individual, which is often misunderstood. It means a person who received media attention without seeking or desiring it - someone who wanted to be low-profile. She went on the children's reality show hoping for exposure and fame.

More relevant is WP:REALITYSINGER, which says "Singers .. who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." She is notable only for participating in Khude Gaanraj. The only other tidbits in the seven sources are a "society page" paragraph saying she received a secondary school scholarship, and a brief mention in the latest one that she has released a song - a very low bar in the digital age, and is working on an album - what musician isn't? If someone wants to write a Khude Gaanraj (there's probably press coverage of each year's champion and runners up, plus [28]), I would support redirection of this as well as her younger sister Fairooj Labiba (created by an account globally locked for being part of a UPE sockfarm). --Worldbruce (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Khude Gaanraj is a famous reality show of Channel i. May be no one has proper information about this show that's why the reality show article wasn't created yet. But individually she is a notable singer as a champion of this show. And she is also enlisted in Bangla Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breekup69 (talk • contribs) 2021-05-16T19:57:24 (UTC)

• Keep Plenty of detailed coverage in the Bangla sources cited in the article. Non-English sources count. Furius (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Furius it has plenty of detailed coverage in the Bangla sources cited in the article. Non-English sources count. Should pass for GNG bar. Jaysonsands (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Naked Boys Singing!. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D'Angora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Single source in article, little in search beyond contributed articles and incidental mentions. Fails WP:GNG; WP:DIRECTOR - "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."; "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique."; has created or played a major role in a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."; "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I should add the article was previously PRODed by User:John_B123 and created by its subject. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom, doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines. --John B123 (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Naked Boys Singing!. It's a viable ATD, but he is not notable enough for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Naked Boys Singing! per above. Jaysonsands (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawwa Fareeshaan (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 covert UPE article on a politician who fails to satisfy any of the criterion from WP:NPOL. The creator of this article has move-warred over this so sending the article to AFD is the only route now. A before search predominantly links me to her social media thus failing to meet #2 of WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can someone who's familiar with governance in Maldives comment on whether her council seat is equivalent to a "state/province–wide office"? It appears that each atoll has its own council, but from what I gather power is quite centralized, so these councils might not qualify for NPOL#1. pburka (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While not familiar with governance in the Maldives, it looks like the sub-national level are Administrative divisions and the subject is the member of a local council on of one of the islands within an administrative division. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is somewhat complex (welcome to AfD!). The 2008 constitution codified decentralised administration in the Maldives, including an article which indicates subnational bodies can enact subordinate legislation (which implies these subnational bodies do not have a legislative capacity as would be the case in federal systems, eg Pakistan, Canada, Switzerland etc). FWIW, I'm not aware of any source which considers the 2008 constitution federal (or equivalent) in nature. The 2010 Decentralisation Act elaborated administration below the national level. Within that there are Atoll Councils, Island Councils, and City Councils as well as a Local Government Authority. A precursory glance at this possibly suggests to me that Atoll Councils (which would include islands and cities) might be enough to justify a territorial threshold for NPOL, but the others not. It's possible that Board membership in the LGA would be notable given it oversees all local governance bodies. It's unfortunate given the limited number of women active in Maldivian politics, but nevertheless on the basis of notability as a member of an island council and the absence of any evidence of passing BASIC/GNG it leads me to supporting delete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 22:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon GO Battle League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Preface: my recommendation is that the outcome be "merge to Pokemon GO," not "delete". The topic is quite WP:FANCRUFTy, and while there are a number of sources, they're largely fan sites and game news. I think the topic merits a section under the main article, but a season-by-season breakdown and the details of each battle league is excessive. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. It's a game feature, the topic does not seem to have, errr, general notability :P sufficient for a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean other than the sources, which is Wikipedia's definition of notability?. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and trim. The feature is one of the most important for the game's playerbase, but its significance may not be obvious for people not in the game. The page contains details that easily fail the 10-year rule, thus warrants trimming. --Luminoxius (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, Move to a new article "Trainer Battle" (currently a section in Pokémon Go where the Go Battle League article is linked) and expand. Trainer Battle is what has real-world impact, with international e-sport events and local community events regularly held. Go Battle League, a virtual part of Trainer Battle, so far barely spills out of the game itself. --Luminoxius (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be a bad idea. This will stand out as an alternative idea. --WellThisIsTheReaper

• Strong Keep Folks, our standard for inclusion is WP:N. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] are all fine sources focused purely on the topic. There are at least 3 good sources published in the last week. There is no problem with sourcing. And reports of how a season of a competition turned out that is covered by reliable sources is not "Gamecruft" anymore than it would be for a sporting event. If you want to discuss a merge for editorial reasons, use the talk page of the relevant articles, not AfD. And saying that "game news" can't be used to source game article is like arguing "sports news" can't be used to source sports articles. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hobit, to clarify - when I said "game news" I meant news from the game developer - pokemongolive and other Niantic-affiliated sources. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources listed by Hobit is news "from the game developer" though. Some of the sources on the current article are, but can be readily replaced by independent sources. --Luminoxius (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think GN was clarifying their nomination statement, not addressing the sources I supplied. Hobit (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I believe that the page includes many reliable sources, and according to WP:N, WP:RS and WP:GNG sources should be significantly relatable to the topic. With good sources, I'd say that this would make a good article. WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I could start and move this page to a new page called "Trainer Battles", as suggested by Luminoxius earlier. --WellThisIsTheReaper 17:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has mny reliable sources and wide coverage too passes GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I do think that this should be an article but in the current shape that it is in, it's not really something that would be good as an Wikipedia Article. So basically what I am saying I am to WP:TNT and start that all over again. HawkAussie (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well sourced. Desertarun (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Bros. II (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 previously AFD'd in a batch nomination in 2013 with several other unofficial Mario games with stronger sourcing (Kart Fighter & Super Mario War), and Mario Bros. II largely wasn't touched upon in the discussion. Currently the article relies entirely on video game database entries, which aren't reliable, and I was unable to find any sources, although the title of the game meant there was a lot of unrelated results that were difficult to dig through. The fact that it's a PD title as opposed to a commerical release may contribute to the lack of coverage. Waxworker (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Searching for "'Mario Bros' Commodore" or "'Mario Bros' Thundersoft" filters out anything related to official Nintendo releases, but once they're all gone there just isn't much left. A few databases and some user-generated content, but nothing that's both reliable and substantial. I also tried a search of 1980s computer game magazines on archive.org and nothing came up there either. Lowercaserho (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was able to find 3 more sources and added. I think this has got historical significance, so we must keep. There are enough supporting sources for it. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the sources you added, MobyGames and GameFAQs are both unreliable (as listed on WP:VG/RS) since they are user generated content. I'm don't know if AusGamers is reliable but even if we assume that it is then the article still only has a single paragraph about the game, which is not significant coverage. Lowercaserho (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - every source present, and what I've found, is either unreliable, not significant coverage, or both. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaitanya Hiremath (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 pr firm they hired did a good job which would definitely confuse the average editor. In actuality, this is your quintessential example of an WP:ADMASQ, the sources used in the article are best described as fake referencing. More interesting is a WP:BEFORE actually turns up hits but unfortunately all hits are extended announcements and PR sponsored posts that lack editorial oversight and are unreliable. Furthermore a Forbes 30 under 30 is by no means a yardstick for determining notability. I however salute the PR firm that created this mirage of notability, they indeed tried their best. They fail GNG, ANYBIO & BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Good gravy. I'll try my best to assume good faith, but that won't keep me from noting that the sources provided are essentially useless for notability purposes. Many lack reliability or independence, and those that remain seem to be only trivial mentions, name-checking Hiremath while discussing his business or something else. My searches aren't finding anything substantial, either. I'll observe that there may be a slightly greater chance that his company is notable, although most of the sources would likely founder on the shoals of WP:NCORP. But this gentleman certainly isn't notable, regardless of the author's valiant attempt. See WP:OVERCOME. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jdcooper (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Nothing to support an article for BLP on WP. Kolma8 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unambiguously spam, given the "contributions" of the author (whom I've blocked). MER-C 14:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Kept by no consensus in 2008. I think it's time for another review, 13 years on. The sources in the current article and those mentioned in the 2008 AfD are trivial mentions, and I wasn't able to find any other substantial coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nominator basically summed it up perfectly. Doesn't meet the general notability guideline. versacespaceleave a message! 21:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pretty clear cut it seems. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability , Samat lib (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom . Not really notable in the context of a global, general encyclopaedia. Okaye Agongo (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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