From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 22 February 24 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Manchester greencycle

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

Fails WP:GNG, significance is limited to one event (split from Freecyle network) which is already covered in Freecycle and Freegle. daylon124 ( talk) 23:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. daylon124 ( talk) 23:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. daylon124 ( talk) 23:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No getting around the GNG arguments made here. Recreation obviously fine if additional sourcing demonstrating notability is found. Daniel ( talk) 14:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

AR Silva

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - copying from Silva and Devapriya - I'm sure we found there was a significant amount of information about cricketers who took part in the Saravanamuttu Trophy, if only I could remember where it was. I think it was information that has at least never made it to the Internet. Bobo . 20:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we do not keep articles based on assertions there is "a siginificatn amount of information" in an unspecified location, to keep articles those wanting to do so need to present where the sources can actually be found. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In the absence of a plausible redirect target. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

R. W. Chandrasiri

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - copying from S. Devapriya - I'm sure we found there was a considerable amount about the Saravanamuttu Trophy that has never made its way online, if only I could remember where it was... Bobo . 20:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus below for the article not to exist. If he gets mentioned in the main article (and that's an editorial decision), would encourage the creation of a redirect at that point. Daniel ( talk) 14:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Buddy Walthers

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

Does not meet GNG. Was involved in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination but not "prominently" as stated in the lead. Notability is not inherited. Searching finds some coverage related to this, but not significant in-depth coverage. MB 14:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MB 14:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MB 14:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, he was involved in the Kennedy assassination which is probably one of the most written about events of the 20th century. But his involvement was very small. You will find lots of mentions like "The first law officer on the scene was Deputy Buddy Walthers". This is not significant in-depth coverage of him; a large number of minor mentions like this do not make a person notable. MB 02:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Dubious -- Most of the article is about his murder in an arrest that went wrong. His minor involvement in the Kennedy Assassination, also feels like "famous for 15 minutes". I fear that my conclusion is that he is probably NN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article asserts that the subject "played prominent a role" in the investigation and then gives us a single poorly-sourced sentence about it. While he happened to be there, the sources seem to suggest that his presence and role is not sufficient to justify a standalone article. Being first on the scene is not a claim of notability, and at best would warrant a brief, one-clause mention at Assassination of John F. Kennedy (where he isn't even mentioned right now). -- Kinu  t/ c 00:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, selectively, a sentence along the lines of "The first law officer on the scene was Deputy Buddy Walthers" to Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Doesn't seem to be independently notable. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearer consensus needed if something is worth merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 04:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bold third relist here, would rather get more clear picture of a merge/redirect possibility rather than close as no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Redirect is essentially the same as a Delete, and wouldn't really be valid here since the subject is not mentioned in the Kennedy article. Such a redirect would be subject to deletion on the grounds that a reader would have no idea why they were led to the Kennedy article. And from the perspective of the Kennedy article, mentioning him there would be trivia and not warranted. MB 23:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I am sympathetic to the argument that discussing him in Assassination of John F. Kennedy would be trivial, and would argue for deletion on those grounds. But for what it's worth, we already mention him, though not by name: "A deputy sheriff noticed some blood on Tague's cheek..." in § Governor Connally and a spectator wounded. This could, I think, be rewritten as "Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers noticed some blood on Tague's cheek...", to force a mention to justify the redirect. It's not great, but it could work. From a quick glance, I don't see sufficient sourcing to justify calling Walthers "the first officer on the scene", which would make it more interesting; just one of the first. So, on balance, redirect with the added name drop, or delete as a second choice. I don't think he has independent notability. —  The Earwig ( talk) 07:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Forgotten Realms#Characters. Note that per the concerns below, this would have to be an incredibly selective merge (maybe a sentence or two, with an upgrade in sourcing potentially. To some extent, that's an editorial call at the other end, and this result isn't a mandate for it to be included at the destination, so much as an encouragement to try if desired. Obviously, this article should at that point end up as a redirect. Daniel ( talk) 14:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Erevis Cale

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

Shows no real world notability – article mostly consists of plot and sourcing relies on a passing mention in one source. – DarkGlow ( contribs • talk) 20:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow ( contribs • talk) 20:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow ( contribs • talk) 20:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – Daranios ( talk) 11:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge with Forgotten Realms#Characters. I agree with BOZ. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 09:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Correct. I only mentioned them because they were suggested as sources above. The current version of the article has one source, and it's a single sentence about the subject within a single paragraph review of four novels. You can read the review at Don D'Ammassa's website. That's really beyond trivial, but also definitely something I should have mentioned in my deletion rationale above. Woodroar ( talk) 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
There is only one source. That is not enough for an article of that length. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 20:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect or Keep I am unsure about how to count the interviews. Aside from what the author says, they do contain some statements by the interviewers. I am fine with a merge and redirect to Forgotten Realms#Characters at this point, which already contains most of what can be done in such a condensed format, but could use another sentence describing what this character is acutally about. The article should not be deleted, as the current content could still be usefull in combination with the found secondary sources at another place and time. Daranios ( talk) 11:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    I would say Merge here. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 08:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I concur with Woodroar's assessment. Articles, even on fictional subjects, unquestioningly need to be based on significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, and these do not appear to exist for this character. As he pointed out, the single source currently in the article consists of exactly one sentence of coverage on the character, and the only sources suggested so far in the AFD are interviews with the character's creator, which are not secondary. Searching for additional sources beyond that turn up nothing further outside of trivial mentions. Rorshacma ( talk) 01:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • All the editor did was add a summary-style sentence or two though, which I thought is appropriate and adequate. I would have done the same myself. They did not unilaterally merge and redirect the article to the main FR article as your words might suggest. Haleth ( talk) 11:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Jumana Mattukat

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

Don't think it passes WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. I couldn't find anything substantial about the subject online. Citations in the article very much promotional. RationalPuff ( talk) 23:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff ( talk) 23:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff ( talk) 23:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff ( talk) 23:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff ( talk) 23:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff ( talk) 23:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 17:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

SUVASTU Properties

SUVASTU Properties (  | 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 real estate company that fails to meet WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search showed this which is a blatant sponsored post / self published. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Suvastu Properties – An artist in modern real estate industry". The Business Standard. February 24, 2021.
  2. ^ "AMIT CHAKRABORTTY, Chief Marketing Officer, Suvastu properties Ltd". July 26, 2020. Archived from the original on December 3, 2020. Retrieved February 24, 2021.
  3. ^ "Eid fair begins at Suvastu Nazar Valley Shopping Mall". The Daily Star. September 17, 2007.
~ Ase1este charge-parity time 05:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 14:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Rick Gillis

Rick Gillis (  | 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:NBIO. The references provide only incidental mention of Gillis. Cannot find any other reliable sources in web search for him or for his employment radio show (which I suspect was an online show). No book reviews either. Rogermx ( talk) 22:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 22:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 22:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 22:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 21:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Espen Hagh

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

Disputed PROD: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL (his single 14-minute substitute appearance in the top division of Norwegian football, 25 years ago, was before the league was ' fully professional'. The sources linked in the article point to trivial coverage falling well short of WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson ( talk) 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep per sources found. Giant Snowman 10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the sources that I linked above, in addition to the offline ones in the article, should be enough. The article's sources seem to contain a lot of non-routine info about the player such as "He was noted as having the team's highest O2 uptake of 76" and "In 1998 he commenced physiotherapy studies in Berlin", suggesting that they are more than just passing mentions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus but some sources. Needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 22:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 14:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Tom Willett

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

Absolutely no sources. Non-notable. Doesn't meet guidelines. Entire content primary source material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment Something is very off about this article and its contributors. The creator "Punkassrocker" is also a contributor to the page Robin Crow. Oddly enough, the books found on the page for Tom Willett are the titles for Crow: Jump and the Net Will Appear. Upon further research, I believe this article to be nothing more than a spoof or created by the subject themself. By Googling the subject's name with various key names, organizations, groups, terms etc, I find absolutely nothing to support any of the content found within the article. There are no such organizations as: "Creative Development Network". Furthermore, the entire section on Music industry educator and mentor is fictious and an internet search leads to a website for a Tom Willett that does not exist. It is a spoof site. Even Wikilinks do not mention the subject's name. He is not associated with any of the albums, publications, artists, etc. Without any references or reliable sources, it would be impossible to know even one aspect of this subject's career or the extensive names, achievements, work without any personal life to mention. All of the "publications" are made up. I think WP has been had. Maineartists ( talk)

Delete In noting the comment above, yes...poking around the guy's website does raise question on what is real or not. Is it a hoax? Not sure...but at the very least this article needs deleted for appropriating verbatim text from the guy's website. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 15:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 14:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Vijay Goel (lawyer)

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with WP:CORPDEPTH and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. Timberlack ( talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack ( talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Timberlack ( talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Timberlack ( talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since nom has been sock-blocked, relist for good-faith comments instead of soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Easily meet notability requirements as the principal officer in multiple national attorney organizations that are substantiated by references already in article and probably bad-faith nomination. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Adish Aggarwala

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

Do not show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack ( talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack ( talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Timberlack ( talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack ( talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since nom has been sock-blocked, relist for good-faith comments instead of soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Immediate Family Records

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

Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

List of stateless societies

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

This article contains two lists, both of which are problematic, and the list format renders these problems unsolvable. Neither list criteria is defined in the article.

The first is "Historical societies". Most are revolts within states. While the ambiguities of what constitutes a society of persons that is independent of whatever state had de jure control over that territory could be dealt with in prose, the list format prevents that sort of discussion. The flag assigned to most of these societies is a clear error (most stateless societies don't have a single flag), and the start and end date for several is far too precise. Most of the "ideologies" listed say nothing about how these societies were governed.

The second list is "indigenous societies". This is somewhere between List of tribes and list of ethnic groups. This again has too many ambiguities, and forming a list creates more questions than answers. The listed "societies" are actually ethnic groups who in most cases exist as multiple, separate societies. Additionally, all of these ethnic groups today live within the jurisdiction of states and the people of these tribes are citizens of these states.

Overall, forming these lists states as a fact that "these entities are stateless societies", whereas the truth is far more ambiguous and would require a significant amount of prose for each entry, plus inclusion criteria that would be very hard to define. I cannot see a page under "List of stateless societies" being useful to the encyclopaedia. LukeSurl t c 15:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for bringing this up. This page was created mostly as a split from a number of items included in the list of anarchist communities that didn't fit there. I understand the current version of this article is far from complete and many items may also be inaccurate. I do think the that there is a place on Wikipedia for a list of stateless societies, but it would need to be drastically expanded on with reliably sourced information. I don't think this page should be deleted entirely, but would be happy to move it to the drafts section until it is of a higher quality. Regards.-- Grnrchst ( talk) 16:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment Given that there are only a couple of hundred states and many thousands of ethic, religious and cultural groups, most groups in the world currently would fall under this definition, even before we go back to the Essenes and the Taborites. There is no Amazigh state now but there certainly were Amazigh states in the past. The Icelandic commonwealth is described as a “direct democracy” but that is a kind of state. There were also Nubian states. I really can’t understand what this list is supposed to be about. Mccapra ( talk) 18:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The concept of a stateless society seems reasonably well-established – see Oxford Reference, for example. A list of examples is therefore reasonable. If there is some dispute about a particular entry then this can be resolved by apppropriate sourcing. For instance, there are multiple sources which cover such communities in West Africa – see The Oxford Handbook of Nigerian Politics, for example. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing. Andrew🐉( talk) 11:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is an important historical topic and one not so easy to cover. The article does need more work but as a historian I can understand the challenges presented by the complexities and ambiguities of defining and listing stateless societies. Draftify if you must, but please don't delete. This article is just 4 days old, surely we can give it more time to grow, improve and let other editors contribute too. Cordially, History DMZ ( HQ) † ( wire) 23:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am not sure if current title is the appropriate title for this type of the article or list. But since the article is just 4 days old we can return to this issue later. Shankargb ( talk) 05:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I was initially skeptical of this article but having read User:History DMZ's comment I have to agree. W1tchkr4ft 00 ( talk) 04:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 04:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - a draftify might be what this needs. The article needs to have clear boundaries on what is and isn't listed, as both being stateless and being a distinct society are often amorphous concepts. I am uncomfortable with the "list of indigenous societies" section, as this is effectively an arbitrary list of (mostly African) ethnic groups. People of literally every ethnic group existed in stateless societies before states dominated the world. -- LukeSurl t c 14:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The stateless societies are well known. Nothing prevents from creating the list to supplement main page on the subject. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The concept of stateless societies is known within anthropology and history. For a range of ideas of how the theme is dealt with in the literature see https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22stateless+societies%22 . The concept of stateless societies is a very important one in fields like social anthropology and West African history. Anthropologists for the last couple of decades have grouped modes of social organization in a continuum with stateless societies at one pole, and state organizations at another. The concept is quite known in related fields. The article can be improved with more editors' work of course, but I believe the article covers a notable and important subject. KJS ml343x ( talk) 17:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Watch It Played

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

Oh my. 338 references. Out of which, we get one broken link, one link to crowdfunding platform (indiegogo), a link to the program's homepage, and 335 links to individual youtube episodes of this videocast (including one link transcluded at BGG). That... has to be some sort of record of that many bad references. Anyway, this clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA (and my BEFORE found nothing to add here outside a link to the twitter account which the creator somehow forgot to add, it would make a fitting proverbial cherry on top...), but I am listing it here instead of PRODing so my fellow editors can gaze at this mess. And maybe someone knows a wikia this can be transwikied too, since it is an impressive piece of, errr, fancruft? PS. A quick check shows that the article has been created and maintained by at least two WP:SPAs... sigh. This seems like a classic case of the YouTube channel owner confusing Wikipedia with a place to host a website for the show... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Looks like I flagged this a couple of years ago, and it still doesn't seem to meet the basic WP:GNG criteria of secondary press coverage. I can't find any interviews with Smith about his channel, and although news articles occasionally mentions the channel as an authority on boardgames, they never provide enough detail to meet GNG, that I can see. The nominator's jokily insulting tone is quite embarrassing, here, though: most Wikipedia editors are not here to laugh at bad articles, they're here to fix them up where possible and move to delete them when not. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 15:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • IAR keep. I hate things like this and feel it's a place where our inclusion rules fall apart. There are tons and tons of interviews with the author/creator about his work (e.g. [4], [5]). References to Watch it Played in mainstream media (e.g. NBC, Today) and in less-mainstream media (e.g. Geekdad). None of that really meets WP:N in the way that some people read it (I would count the interviews toward notability, but I don't think that has consensus). But this clearly is something we can source, verify, and is notable in the English sense of the word. So IAR keep. Hobit ( talk) 18:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Hobit, The problem here is that I, as a board game hobbyist, know that those channels are 'reasonably well known' to the hobbyists, but that knowledge is not enough, per GNG, NORG, NMEDIA, etc. If the 'experts' know something is notable, but there is no coverage in other sources, we need... something else. But for scholarly journals, for example, we accept being indexed in major citation indices as a proof of notability. (I forget if the circulation number is an indicator of newspaper/magazine notability...). Anyway. The channel has 219k subscribers. Maybe we could add a rule on YouTube subscriber number that makes a channel notable to the NMEDIA, then we won't have to invoke IAR. Do note that The Dice Tower, which has 269k subscribers, was closed a while ago as 'merge' per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dice Tower (2nd nomination) (and why not, I just started a a discussion on this here). All that said, IAR is fine, but right now this article does seem to fail our guidelines, and I can't even think of a soft delete redirect target to WP:PRESERVE this... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Can't really disagree with much of anything you said. I just think A) we have enough to write a decent article and B) this seems like the kind of thing we should keep. But I agree WP:N isn't easily met (again, the interviews maybe...). This, IMO, is what IAR is here for. I don't expect the argument to carry the day unless it gets a strong numeric agreement... Hobit ( talk) 02:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Google news search for "Watch It Played" "card game" reviews reliable sources consider this a reliable source, the guy seen as an expert in this, they quoting his opinions on games of this type. https://www.today.com/shop/11-best-games-play-zoom-t179862 Dream Focus 03:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify to Draft:Nikapotha Chandrajothi Anunayaka Thero. The primary author, DIMI GUNASEKARA, is encouraged to use the articles for creation process to allow other experienced editors to review the article when it is brought up to a more encyclopedic standard, and to consider reaching out to editors from WikiProject Sri Lanka or WikiProject Buddhism for help developing the article. —  The Earwig ( talk) 23:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Nikapotha Chandrajothi Anunayaka Thero

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

BLP of an apparently senior figure in Sri Lankan Buddhism. The article consists mostly of a great many transliterated Sri Lankan terms, making it very hard for the general reader to know what his role is, what authority he holds, or much else about him. The sources seem to be mostly closely affiliated with organisations he runs or works for. Notability is therefore not established. Mccapra ( talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: He is the second highest Buddhist monk in a Buddhist nation, Sri Lanka. The President, Prime Minister and the cabinet are all Buddhists. Recently the UNHCR criticised them for cremations of Muslims in the disposal of bodies from the Covid-19 pandemic. He is Head of the Police Chaplains and advisor to the Education Department on transmission of Buddhist values to schoolchildren. Oh, User:Mccapra, may you know the Shunyata for putting this up for deletion. Infobox should not have sinhala text; this is badhaka, a mortal sin. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 10:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
ok the first three sentences in your comment have no bearing on whether or not this person is notable. However knowing that “he is Head of the Police Chaplains and advisor to the Education Department on transmission of Buddhist values to schoolchildren” is useful and I could not have figured that out from the impenetrable text of the article. Can you point to multiple reliable independent sources that would demonstrate that this article should be kept?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 08:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi all of you, I would first like to thank all of you for criticising and commenting on my very first article.Being a buddhist I find that there is lack of info on the subject and wanted to expand it. I will edit and make the article more understandable to English speaking personnel. Please kindly excuse my mistakes and let me know of any changes I need to do.I m new to wikipedia and am working hard to understand how things work,thank you for your efforts in advance and we ll work together in trying to fix this article..

DIMI GUNASEKARA ( talk) 01:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

hi @ DIMI GUNASEKARA: if you still want to work on the article I suggest it should be Draftified to allow you the necessary time. Mccapra ( talk) 05:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Zeoke (Lučani)

Zeoke (Lučani) (  | 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 MEisSCAMMER (talk)Hello! 18:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. MEisSCAMMER (talk)Hello! 18:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
But the source says it's from 2003 -- it's outdated. There would have been a more recent census if it was still notable. MEisSCAMMER (talk)Hello! 21:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Even if it is no longer populated (which doesn't seem likely), WP:GEOLAND also applies to formerly populated places. See also WP:NTEMP - if a subject gains notability, it will still be notable, even if the conditions that gave it notability are no longer present (like retired athletes). Hog Farm Talk 22:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already speedily deleted by Ponyo. No need to keep the discussion open any longer. (Non-admin closure) SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 01:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Aditya Gadhvi

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

Recreation of a page which was deleted previous though deletion discussion. Here is the link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aditya_Gadhvi DasSoumik ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DasSoumik ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

San Benancio, California

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

This article has a peculiar history, to say the least, and it was put up for speedy deletion early on. The GNIS link, for a long time, pointed to a nearby subdivision; searching GNIS gives two hits for the canyon/gulch and one for a middle school, but no "populated place". The topos consistently show the canyon/gulch label when they have anything at all, and while there is always something of a smear of buildings down the canyon, nothing says it's a separate community. It seems to be a locale, not a notable settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 03:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Also, see comments on Talk:San Benancio, California from article creator. Mangoe ( talk) 03:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 09:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 14:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Teejay Sidhu

Teejay Sidhu (  | 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:NACTOR - several guest appearances in television shows, the reality show the article says she is known for she finished 6th, the movie roles are minor parts at best. Not enough to meet WP:GNG either. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Yourweek

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

Procedural nomination following this RfD: the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 17:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 17:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 17:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket

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

Upon reviewing the sources, there is nothing that is definitely usable for proving notability.

  1. [6]: 2 sentences, part of a large gallery. No consensus yet on the reliability of space.com.
  2. Primary source, a JBIS paper detailing the proposal by Richard Obousy. Obousy is also a co-founder of Icarus.
  3. [7]: Primary source to Icarus website, plus weird citation formatting.
  4. [8]: About antimatter and fusion technology, does not mention VARIES.
  5. [9] Supposedly republished from Discovery News, but the original is no longer available; might be a PR by Obousy. There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News for science topics.
  6. [10]: 2 paragraphs out of many proposals; probably not RS.
  7. [11]: This is the paper that first predicted Schwinger pair production. It was published in 1931, while the proposal was made in 2011.
  8. [12]: Blog.

More information here: FTN thread. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Run-of-the-mill "proposal" for an invention that will Revolutionize Space Travel(TM), with the typical PR campaign material recycled by the typical low-standards websites. The Fox News item definitely looks like PR written by Obousy himself; it doesn't have a byline at the top, but the text at the bottom (Richard Obousy is co-founder and President of Icarus Interstellar Inc., etc.) certainly reads like an author bio. I wouldn't expect space.com to have any higher standards than, say, Popular Mechanics when it comes to fringe stuff; wormholes and warp drives are good for clicks. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as likely WP:SOAP. Let some better sources comment on this idea before creating an article. jps ( talk) 17:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found some more sources:
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16]
  • [17]

🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep:

I believe it's the only spacecraft proposal on using Schwinger pair production for uncrewed interstellar travel.
JBIS is one of the most prestigious journals on interstellar tavel: https://www.jbis.org.uk/paper/2011.64.378
Centauri Dreams ( https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2016/08/02/the-evolution-of-antimatter-propulsion/) is written by Paul Gilster, an expert on interstellar travel: https://www.planetary.org/profiles/paul-gilster
Space.com and Interesting Engineering and reliable secondary sources as far as I'm concerned.
Cheers. ExoEditor 03:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
On what grounds are space.com and "Interesting Engineering" reliable? Also, the JBIS paper is by Obousy himself, so it's a primary source and doesn't count towards notability. Nothing in Gilster's bio suggests relevant professional qualifications, either. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A lot of these sources read like pr pieces. Instead of being discussed in haphazard corners of the internet, we should look for reliable research on the concept, which I see none of (the one scientific reference notably is not about the topic of the article). Sam-2727 ( talk) 04:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article is poorly written and largely content free. The references appear to be very inadequate. And the facts just don't make sense without much better referencing. The idea doesn't even pass the laugh test. How can the power system and laser could produce more or better propulsion by producing and then subsequently using antimatter, compared to simply using the power directly? That feels like a violation of conservation of energy, and a worthwhile article must at least mention and discuss such an obvious issue. Fcrary ( talk) 07:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The sources can't even agree on what this does. Schwinger pair production produces the lightest charged particles, i.e. electrons and positrons. I left that conflict unresolved in my earlier edit because I didn't understand it, on further review the proposal just doesn't make any sense, it's not surprising that the articles about it don't make sense either. -- mfb ( talk) 12:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but rename to Theoretical spacecraft propulsion, then merge several other sci-fi concept articles as sections into the new title. This will preserve the content of this content and solve the same problem with several other articles (ie. Fission sail, Gravitational shielding, Helical engine, Nano electrokinetic thruster, Nuclear photonic rocket). JHelzer 💬 15:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Done. But I personally think the articles should be kept because a single article including all seems very long. Btw I would say none of them are sci-fi, but rather published in prestigious scientific journals. I prefer to call them theoretical physics. ExoEditor 15:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ ExoEditor: Whoa! I'm glad that you liked the idea, but that was very fast and unilateral. What you've created makes a good demonstration of my suggestion, but in the future I suggest waiting for consensus before taking action. The discussion is still open. JHelzer 💬 16:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
I do like this idea and will help refine the new article if we get consensus to go this route. JHelzer 💬 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: I think "Theoretical spacecraft propulsion" would be a confusing title. It would sound like the article is about the theory of how spacecraft propulsion systems work in general. Something like "Hypothetical spacecraft propulsion concepts" would be better, but that's a little wordy. Fcrary ( talk) 19:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
"Hypothetical AAV Propultion Concepts" Advanced Aerospace Vehicle (AAV) is what NASA, Spaceforce, AATIP, and others refer to these vehicles as. 70.126.0.99 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes. This kind of move shouldn't be done until the AfD is concluded. Doing it this way, by starting a new page, also obscures the page history, which is bad for attribution purposes. And a new article shouldn't use the same unreliable sources that this one did. Moreover, the content copied (without attribution) from nuclear photonic rocket should also be deleted, just like Photonic laser thruster was; it's another COI creation of Young K. Bae. Let's not make copies of material that shouldn't exist. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is manifestly unworkable for the simple reason of energy conservation. Solar panels are not going to collect enough energy to pay for their own weight in this scheme. This is the limiting factor; converting their energy into antimatter cannot magically boost the energy density to equivalency with that of antimatter as this article implicitly suggests. One could just as plausbly run a fusion reactor with banana peels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgaugh ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Luke Hughes (furniture designer) (selectively) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Luke Hughes and Company Limited

Luke Hughes and Company Limited (  | 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:ORG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NCORP. Small private furniture design firm. scope_creep Talk 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge to Luke Hughes (furniture designer), who does seem to be notable (I'm here via the COI noticeboard). This is a transparent puff piece, written as a story rather than an encyclopedia entry and seemingly not based in the sources it cites. The company can be written about in the context of his career. Fences& Windows 21:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Luke Hughes (furniture designer), per F&W. There is a Thames & Hudson book on his furniture, so there is notability. The best and lest promotional place to explain that notability is in a single article on him. In terms of his public notability, he and the company are one and the same. Possibly ( talk) 23:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Selectively merge for the time being, however Luke Hughes (furniture designer) could be a candidate for AfD. See edit history. It appears to be well sourced at first but as I dig through the target page, I am finding a whole lot of invalid references that do not support the claims made. That book about his work creates a presumption of notability but further review could find otherwise. Graywalls ( talk) 19:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Masahiro Aozono

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

Current sources fails in passing WP:GNG Cuoxo ( talk) 16:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo ( talk) 16:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. -- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create
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) 22:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Lloyd Yancey

Lloyd Yancey (  | 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:NGRIDIRON as he never appeared in a regular season game and other coverage is limited to game summaries and college signing. No significant coverage that would pass GNG. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 16:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 16:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 16:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 16:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 16:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

DHL 757-200F Cargo Door Incident

DHL 757-200F Cargo Door Incident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating per WP:N and WP:ROTM. Per longstanding community consensus, this is a minor non-prominent incident. There were no casualties, apparently only minor aircraft damage, no significant disruption to the air travel system, and (at least as I write this) no resulting airworthiness directive. It may warrant a mention in the article about the Boeing 757 but it doesn't warrant its own article. Carguychris ( talk) 16:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Enlighten us; please... As to how is it relevant, Prins van Oranje? Night fury 22:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Rahat Public Junior High School

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

I was unable to find any coverage that would establish notability through WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The best sources that I can find are the bare minimum descriptions provided in school directories such as Edugorilla and Schools.org.in. From the sources available, there is nothing to suggest that this school is notable, historic or significant. It is a recently-founded and very small school that has apparently never been subject to any decent media coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
My only concern with redirecting would be that that list is only for schools with their own stand-alone articles. Once this school is determined to not be notable enough for an article, it will then be removed from the List of schools in India, which would then make the redirect potentially confusing. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. Count me as a delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Plavelil Shanku Pillai Memorial Upper Primary School

Plavelil Shanku Pillai Memorial Upper Primary School (  | 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:NORG and WP:GNG; the former requires the school to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. During my WP:BEFORE search I could not find any evidence that this school has ever received this kind of coverage and most of the search results were just Wikipedia mirrors. I could not even find trivial news stories that most schools get, such as local papers promoting the school fête or notices of being closed due to COVID. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Robert Parkes

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

Potentially notable associate professor. [18] [19]. scope_creep Talk 15:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Greg Kouri

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

While it apparently is different from the prior version deleted through AfD, the same issues still apply. Onel5969 TT me 15:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Greg Bennick

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Lots of sps profiles and minor coverage as a producer. scope_creep Talk 15:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article was updated per WP:HEY listing reviews that proved the subject was an author. Excellent work. (non-admin closure) scope_creep Talk 12:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Solomos Solomou (economist)

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

Potentially notable per WP:NACADEMIC scope_creep Talk 14:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ David Eppstein: Thanks for that. I was looking at article for 5 hours on and off for the last couple of days. I should have a posted a query to your page.Nomination withdrawn
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Congotronics. Daniel ( talk) 14:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Congotronics series

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

delete, or merge with Congotronics or Crammed Discs, standalone for record series is unsourced, appears promotional. Acousmana ( talk) 14:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Veneration Music

Veneration Music (  | 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 GNG and NCORP. Only sources are associated with the company, and half of them are MySpace. My search did not turn up additional sources which establish notability. Note they did not produce/distribute the movies listed, but only provided some of the songs for the movies. They are not even discussed at most of the target articles. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. At this point there is rough consensus towards keeping the article at this time. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Gwendolyn Masin

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

Gwendolyn Masin fails WP:BLP; it's partially not neutral and mostly based upon the knowledge of someone close to the subject. Though, she does seem to have some notability within her field. The article is also filled with external links within sentences, which contradicts WP:EXT. Mikalagrand ( talk) 13:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Cannot count the above vote per WP:ILIKEIT and personal connection. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Kolma8 ( talk) 12:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Thumboli Kadappuram

Thumboli Kadappuram (  | 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:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE.

PROD was removed by Kashmorwiki: "Found a source ( not covering in depth but reliable) in malayalam. Not eligible for prod"

I checked both of the sources that the contributor added. One [20] is just listing the movies in which Silk Smitha was in. So this one is not about the movie at all. Second one [21] is about a singer who recorded a song for this movie. Again, it is not about the movies. Fails WP:NFP.

Thank you,

Kolma8 ( talk) 12:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 ( talk) 12:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 ( talk) 12:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 ( talk) 12:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: WP:NFILM's additional inclusionary criteria clearly says that The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. The sources I provided establish the movie was one of the major part of Smitha's career. Also its hard to find sources. So sources like this, that can prove the movie actually had a theatrical release must be considered to establish notability. Regards. Kichu🐘 Discuss 14:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: It's very hard to get sources for movies that got released before 20's. And it's a fact that to get much sources for old movies is hard and whereas it's easy to get many amount of press coverage for movies after 20's because media coverage are more during this days. Although it's hard, I have found some citations and added to the article. So before just nominating all the old movie article for deletion, I request the reviewer for better search for some sources and read WP:BEFORE.- ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

.

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

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 18:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Anna Laue

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

No appearances that would qualify her for notability under WP:NFOOTBALL according to DFB, World Football and Soccerway. Also please note that the USL W-League was always semi-pro.

In addition, the coverage does not seem enough for WP:GNG; the best sources found were a brief Q&A in a regional newspaper, a match report in another regional newspaper and a brief quote here. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Bence Varga

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

A footballer that has played either 9 minutes or 8 minutes of professional football depending on whether you trust HLSZ or Soccerway more. In any case, this is a very thin passing of WP:NFOOTBALL. A Hungarian search as well as Google searches using both Hungarian name order and Western name order did not yield any useful coverage about this particular player, so I see no evidence that WP:GNG is met. Strong consensus now that such thin passes of NFOOTBALL are not enough when GNG is failed. The player has now spent a decade languishing in the lower tiers of Hungarian football without picking up any significant coverage and it seems highly unlikely that they will ever return to the professional level. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 14:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

AstroPay

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

Poorly-sourced stub about a non-notable fintech company. Sources cited don't appear to be very RS, and a search finds nothing better. Note also that the claimed Forbes 'fintech startups to watch' accolade is only one Forbes sites contributor's opinion AFAICT. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 11:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rough consensus towards keeping the article at this time. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Bernard Njonga

Bernard Njonga (  | 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 WP:NPOL. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW close. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Jonah Manzano

Jonah Manzano (  | 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 lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them and do not satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. A before search literally reveals just this & hits in unreliable user generated sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 10:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - does not appear to meet criterion 1 in WP:MUSICBIO (for "multiple" non-trivial sources), only real coverage is the SBS article from yesterday; also does not meet any of the other criteria in that policy. There don't appear to be any appropriate places to merge or redirect. Deus et lex ( talk) 12:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article was created by a near- SPA that is either the musician himself or someone interested in promoting Filipino Australians. If the article was written by himself, I sure hope he is better at music than grammar. He got one friendly media intro here: [22], but that doesn't accomplish much. Otherwise the article admits that he is trying to get started as a musician after losing his job, with a plan for heartwarming pandemic songs. Good luck to him on his self-promotional strategy, but a Wikipedia article comes after he gets reliable media notice, not before. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Doomsdayer520, Ah! thanks for pointing out the potential COI problems, something I failed to catch. Celestina007 ( talk) 16:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Saintgits College of Engineering

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

I can't find any decent coverage outside of primary sources and routine database listings for this college; does not apparently meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. The article was possibly created for promotional purposes. JaiMahadev ( talk) 10:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Just about enought to satisfy GNG Fenix down ( talk) 11:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

William Frantzen

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

Squeaks by on WP:NFOOTY as he made two brief appearances in an alleged 'fully professional league' 9/10 years ago. In the first he appears to have been substituted after 29 minutes and in the second he was substituted on in the 90th minute. Fails WP:GNG as he apparently decided to focus on his day job. Bring back Daz Sampson ( talk) 17:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 24 appearances for a fully professional club, albeit a yo-yo one between top and 2nd division. 8 year career. This seems like a nomination on a technicality. Also, has article on numerous other wikis. Abcmaxx ( talk) 03:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 22:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Not a great deal of participation, but I am going to bold here and say that the sources presented by Spiderone are sufficient, just about, to indicate GNG Fenix down ( talk) 11:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Stein Berg Johansen

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

Unexplained removal of PROD: article subject fails WP:NFOOTY due to the Norwegian men's football league not being 'fully professional', also fails WP:GNG due to lack of sustained, non-routine coverage in reliable sources. Bring back Daz Sampson ( talk) 14:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

2009 National Scrabble Championship

2009 National Scrabble Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced event with no claim of notability. PRODed with " The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (events)'s supplement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". PROD removed with copy-paste unhelpful rationale by User:Andrew Davidson. Let's discuss... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per the 2010 discussion, for further analysis and to achieve consensus on sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

2010 National Scrabble Championship

2010 National Scrabble Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced event with no claim of notability. PRODed with " The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (events)'s supplement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". PROD removed with copy-paste unhelpful rationale by User:Andrew Davidson. Let's discuss... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 10:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as A7, G11. (non-admin closure) —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 10:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Shayhriyar

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

CSD tag was removed using IP without an explanation. This is simply a self-written vanity page. Terribly fails WP:SINGER RationalPuff ( talk) 10:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff ( talk) 10:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff ( talk) 10:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff ( talk) 10:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 14:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Gurudeva Institute of Science And Technology

Gurudeva Institute of Science And Technology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No decent coverage outside of primary sources JaiMahadev ( talk) 09:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC) User is a sockpuppet of Phoenix man. ~ Ase1este charge-parity time 11:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Cyclofosfamide/dexamethasone

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

This doesn't seem to be an existing combination drug. The article's ref also doesn't mention a regimen with just these two substances; they are apparently part of several larger regimens. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 09:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete, as article creator. When creating this article I was under the impression that this was a combination drug, but on a second look it seems indeed not to be. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 15:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 14:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Tricia Psarreas

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Only published work appears to be a self-published book. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 08:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keep arguments based on technical (and disputed) sng passes are given less weight for a BLP where the level of sourcing isn’t shown to pass gng. Spartaz Humbug! 11:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Drane Scrivener

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

Unable to find any significant coverage for this subject, fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON (having only played for the World Football League, which has not been vetted for inclusion at the SNG), and WP:NCOLLATH. Was a fourth-round NFL draft pick, but being a draft pick does not meet any notability guidelines. Eagles  24/7  (C) 07:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 07:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 07:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 07:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 07:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:NCOLLATH is not limited to consensus first-team picks. I would agree that selection by an unofficial selector could be viewed as a gray area, but the NEA was an official NCAA-recognized selector. So this is a clear pass of WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
To my knowledge (and I've followed things pretty closely), we have NEVER before deleted an article on a Division I first-team All-American. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of Oklahomma newspapers that are available on-line from the pre-Internet era when Scrivener was active. Given that these periodicals are not available on-line, the presumption of notability flowing from NCOLLATH should control. The strength of the presumption is enhanced by the additional facts showing that he (i) was inducted into Tulsa's HOF, (ii) was named to Tulsa's All-Century team, and (iii) played professional football in the WFL. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Sounds like WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:OUTCOMESBASED. I would like to believe there is significant coverage out there, but this is the appropriate avenue for locating them. WP:NCOLLATH does not explicitly mention first-team Division I All-Americans, but even if it did, GNG is still the basis for the SNGs. To note, Scrivener appears to be the only player listed at 1972 College Football All-America Team who received a first-team selection by a selector and did not appear on any other selectors' teams. (As an aside, the article previously mentioned Scrivener was named second-team Tulsa All-Century, but the reference says he was third-team. I've corrected this in the article.) Eagles  24/7  (C) 19:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
You misunderstand NCOLLATH and the nature of the presumption it creates. A first-team All-American clearly qualifies under NCOLLATH -- see prong 1 and the linked template. Passing NSPORTS establishes a rebuttable presumption that a topic is notable. As with all rebuttable presumptions, the effect is to shift the burden of proof. See Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932) ("A rebuttable presumption clearly is a rule of evidence which has the effect of shifting the burden of proof."). Accordingly, a party challenging the notability of a topic that passes NSPORTS has the burden of proof to demonstrate by appropriate and diligent searches that the topic has not received significant coverage of the type required by the general notability standard. The scope of such searches will vary depending on the circumstances, including geography (e.g., an Oklahoma topic should include searches of Oklahoma sources) and time period (e.g, hard copy searches may need to be conducted for pre-Internet topics where the relevant sources are not digitally available). There are plenty of American football articles that either should be deleted, or are in a gray area, but AfD'ing Division I first-team All-Americans (the highest level of achievement in college football) strikes me as quite misguided. We have never deleted an article on a Division I first-team All-American and should not start doing so now. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
I echo what Eagles247 has said regarding the All-American outcomes, but am troubled by the comments I've seen from the article creator, who, despite creating a great many football articles (of which I'm sure many are fine), has displayed here and elsewhere that they do not understand the relevant notability guidelines or AfD procedure. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 20:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
It's better to keep the discussion on the topic rather than questioning other editors' competency or comprehension. While I voted delete at Lloyd Yancey, my review of Tecmo's articles (including this one) reflects a pretty decent grasp of applicable notability standards. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • While your point is taken, I feel like the general ignorance of NGRIDIRON as well as the removal of an AfD tag from an article (which I believe happened with this one) raise more questions to me than they answer, especially for an editor who has been active for a number of years. Only coming to AfD four times, to vote keep each time, is indicative to me that there is only a self-interest, which I suppose could be understandable. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 20:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
This is an athlete from the sixties and early seventies, it is not going to be quite as easy as searching for athletes in the eighties and forward. And you are also talking about a cornerback, which is not one of the most glamorous positions in football during that time. Tecmo ( talk) 18:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
There are over 300 hundred results in newspapers.com. What do you mean you couldn't find articles that werent related to his time in college or professional sports ? Tecmo ( talk) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Tecmo -- Sporting Flyer's comment was with respect to "significant" coverage. See WP:SIGCOV for a fuller explanation. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Like other delete proponents, I can find no SIGCOV: end of story. Debates over whether he qualifies under NCOLLATH are irrelevant; NCOLLATH, as with every other NSPORTS SNG, is under guidance that it does not immunize an article against the necessity of meeting the GNG. Since no keep proponent has lifted a finger to take the article out of its current state of poor sourcing, and since the GNG has no clauses exempting 1970s athletes or cornerbacks from its provisions, there you have it.

    (And that being said, Tecmo has a trout slap coming for deleting an AfD template. Someone who's been here eight years should know better. Ravenswing 22:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I can't find any biographical prose written about this person in reliable sources. I can find his name appearing on a few lists, and that's about it. If we have no source material, we have no reason to have an article about them. -- Jayron 32 17:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:NCOLLATH #1, per Cbl62 and Rlendog. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 22:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; lack of WP:SIGCOV overrides any trivial pass of any part of WP:NSPORT. We can keep his name in a list, if a suitable one exists. wjemather please leave a message... 14:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Wjemather: I have voted with you on cricket micro-stubs concerning players with minimal participation, but a Division I-A first-team All-American is quite different. There are approximately 50,000 individuals each year who participate in NCAA football at the different levels of play (Division I-A/FBS, Division I-AA/FCS, Division II, Division III). By receiving a Division I-A first-team All-America honor, a player has been selected by one of the officially-recognized selectors as one of the 22 best players out of 50,000 participants (i.e., the top .0004% of all players). This is a true pinnacle of achievement in NCAA football. In the 14 years that I've been monitoring NCAA football AfDs, we have NEVER deleted an article on a Division I-A/FBS first-team All-American. IMO doing so would be a horrible precedent. (There is difficulty pulling the SIGCOV for this particular pre-Internet player because the Tulsa area newspapers are not available in digitally-searchable format in any database that I've been able to locate.) Cbl62 ( talk) 17:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
So your argument is that it's OK to have an article with no source text to reference because you can't find any source text to reference. Okay.... -- Jayron 32 17:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
My argument is that there are certain pinnacle-level achievements where notability is appropriately presumed, particularly for the pre-Internet era, and that the relevant off-line sources should be searched before we delete. Okay .... Cbl62 ( talk) 17:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
However, it must be recognised that this is the pinnacle at a non-elite level, and a presumption is not a guarantee. wjemather please leave a message... 17:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
That argument would only hold water if that "pinnacle-level achievement" was itself a clear indicator that the source text existed. For example, if a person were elected the Head of State of a nation, one would presume that all people so elected would have had significant writing about their lives. You've made the assertion that being named to an All-American team is of a similar level, what I am doing is questioning that: Your contention is that every (or at least nearly all) All-Americans have sufficient source text we can use to write an article. I don't believe that to be true, and you've provided no evidence to the contrary. Indeed, your one example for this article you've admitted you can't find anything, though assert that it must exist somewhere that no one can read it. That's not good enough. -- Jayron 32 17:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Jayron32: I didn't create this article, but I've spent a good chunk of the last 14 years working on All-American football player bios. From that experience, I can tell you that Scrivener is an oddity. I can't recall another first-team All-American where I've had difficulty tracking down SIGCOV. Typically, first-team picks by an official selector receive abundant SIGCOV. The Scrivener case puzzles me to be honest. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
If you're looking for sources, it appears he has a son, Drane W. Scrivener Jr., who played for Western Kentucky and appears to work as both a general contractor and firefighter in Louisville. Perhaps that will give some help digging something up. I think That's the younger Scrivener in the picture there. -- Jayron 32 18:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks, I am aware of the setup. Deletion would would simply be following existing consensus regarding the requirement for SIGCOV in the case of sportspeople. However, keeping would betting setting a president of disregarding such requirements on the basis of speculation of the existence of hidden sources. There is (of course) no bar to recreation should significant coverage ever be unearthed. wjemather please leave a message... 17:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
I really do hear you but respectfully disagree as to (a) whether Division I-A/FBS is an elite level (were this a Division I-AA or lower honor, I would agree with you 100%), and (b) the strength of the presumption of notability that should be afforded in the case of a tightly-formulated SNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) Well, of course. The very second that someone produces the sources, the article can be undeleted. An assertion that sources exist, but no one can find them, is not good enough to keep an article around. -- Jayron 32 17:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Respectfully, Jayron, your approach renders the "presumption" of notability to be meaningless. A presumption should have some force and effect. Under your view, a person presumed to be notable under a well-drafted SNG would be treated no differently at AfD than a person who is under no presumption of notability. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
I don't think that's an accurate statement - if we didn't have agate saying he was an All-American this would almost certainly be headed to a unanimous delete instead of us discussing whether the presumption has merit even though GNG is, at this point, failed. Instead we're in an unusual zone, because GNG is a requirement, it hasn't been met yet, and we've looked, even though you'd expect it to be met in these sorts of situations. SportingFlyer T· C 00:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Actually, nobody has checked the relevant Tulsa/Oklahoma media outlets because they are not available on-line from the early 1980s. That's where the presumption should kick in and protect the article. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
You'd expect an All-American (as a "major award") to have more than local coverage, though, which is one of the other presumptions in NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer T· C 00:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Those are separate and independent presumptions. Also, there is abundant and national coverage of the All-America selection. It's the deeper coverage that is more likely to be found in the Oklahoma outlets. Cbl62 ( talk) 07:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Cbl62.- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 07:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's close, but I agree with Cbl62. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for mainly lacking WP:SIGCOVand secondly WP:NGRIDIRON. This is not very wells sourced where four of the citations are only lists of team transactions. According to NGRIDIRON someone who didn't play in the NFL could be notable if he "...attained notability arising from their college football days." Granted that two sources show him being recognized by his Alma Mater but his playing career there didn't seem to have received widespread sports page coverage. Sounds like a player with a lot of promise that just fell short of making an NFL team. Generally speaking, if one is having trouble finding WP:RSs to support a subject's notability than the person probably does not pass the WP:GNG bar. Blue Riband► 02:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Weapon testing

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

Overly broad and not notable as a stand-alone topic, and is an entirely undeveloped fork of more narrowly defined articles such as Nuclear weapons testing. Almost the entire article deals with a single event; a very specific disagreement regarding the test protocol for the Bradley fighting vehicle. Pais arepa 05:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pais arepa 05:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Pais arepa 05:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Andy Jones (producer)

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

Fails GNG. Only real coverage is for an incident regarding an anchor refusing to read on air a story about Paris Hilton in 2007, fails WP:1E. Pais arepa 05:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pais arepa 05:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pais arepa 05:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pais arepa 05:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment Based on article, two notable programs has been produced by him, but there's no reliable sources for establishing that. If by reliable sources we understand he's producer of those programs, I think he is notable. Fatzaof ( talk) 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to BBC's New Year's Eve#2020: The Big New Year's In. Daniel ( talk) 12:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Alicia Keys Rocks New Year's Eve

Alicia Keys Rocks New Year's Eve (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is the BBC One New Year Eve Broadcast for NYE 2020. The program attracted criticism for not having having UK host but a US star. As an event, WP:EVENT criteria applies. It has to be a significant, memorable event. New Year's Eve is memorable for many, but a television broadcast of the event is open to criticism. Coverage is press releases and a Twitter note. Events require in depth coverage to be notable. WP:INDEPTH. This article does not meet WP:BASIC let alone other criteria. Whiteguru ( talk) 05:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to BBC's New Year's Eve#2020: The Big New Year's In Notwithstanding the usual group of Twitter whiners which get red-top attention on every one of these stories about 'we want New Year's Eve to be how it was in 1964'...we have an article involving BBC's New Year's Eve programming, and it should be redirected here. The playlist and credits aren't needed, but a little more from this article can go in this section. Nate • ( chatter) 10:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is consensus that the subject meets WP:BASIC. ( non-admin closure) — MarkH21 talk 05:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Yun Waddy Lwin Moe

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

Working model with lots of promotional coverage, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and comes nowhere close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 04:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep. There are literally millions of sources in both English and native language. Her Facebook has 3 million followers and Instagram even more. Should have discuseed on talk page so that others can address the concerns. SSH remoteserver ( talk) 04:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
To add, all criteria are met for WP:ENT. Again, I don't want to accuse people of malice, but this discussion doesn't even make any sense. Someone drove-by, added tags on a topic without any knowledge, and without discussion, kept insisting on adding them which were reverted by multiple users. Obviously, if I know nothing about Miley Cyrus and put her on deletion, people will accuse me of malice. The same treatment should apply. SSH remoteserver ( talk) 04:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Really???? I agree that the article requires improvement. She appears to have been well-known as a model and in ads before appearing in this film. She has appeared in several major fashion shows such as Amora, Myanmar International Fashion Week. She was also an UNICEF Youth Ambassador. She has countless coverage in multiple reliable sources from my country 's major media, see [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49],

[50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], many more ... can be used to further expand the article. I think the multiple news articles fulfill WP:BASIC: "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The dearth of English sources notwithstanding, the amount of Myanmar news coverage easily establishes her notability per the WP:GNG. Why people are using AFD as a weapon ? Taung Tan ( talk) 09:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per a lot of coverage in a Google News search with just the model's Burmese name "ယွန်းဝတီလွင်မိုး". I'm sure that's enough to establish notability. Passses WP:BASIC and therefore deseves an article here. More work is needed to bring this article up to better standards though. Regards Zin Win Hlaing ( talk) 10:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi dear, Yun, also known as Khay, is not an actress but has achieved fame and success as model. Her fan base is one of the largest fans bases after Sai Sai Kham Leng, Phway Phway, and Wutt Hmone Shwe Yi in Myanmar. She meet WP:ENT#2 as "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.", but not sure for #1 because she has acted as lead role in only one film. Although SSH remoteserver and I different opinion on some things but I support this with SSH. Thanks Taung Tan ( talk) 17:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Maybe.... or may not be ;-) Everyone who is not living in Myanmar does not know per se.... You know it - you will have to prove it. We had this discussion before ;-) CommanderWaterford ( talk) 21:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Sure, we are required to prove everything to your satisfication. It's neither your ignorance nor entitlement. Hey, delete whatever you want. I'm done with this shit. SSH remoteserver ( talk) 03:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Taung Tan. Let's fork a Burmese English Wiki and lobby the gov to block Wikipedia. The barbarians here will keep bullying us just to tell you who's the boss. That's all. SSH remoteserver ( talk) 03:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
keep calm bro. I have had similar problems with you, see my talk page. Now I give up everything because my country is in drakness. There is no time to be angry. I think you are a Burmese in the United States. Pls take care bro. Best regards Taung Tan ( talk) 03:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
CommanderWaterford: The reason you only found 9 hits may due to the Burmese font system error – Zawgyi and Unicode fonts. Going to dig a bit more, you will see many more in-depth coverage. And I hope you don't ignore (or pretend not to see) several sources (28 in total) found by User:Taung Tan. Zin Win Hlaing ( talk) 04:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 12:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

The Unleashed

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

No indication of notability per WP:NTV. I also cannot find evidence that it's aired on ABC. ... discospinster talk 03:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Carlos Ulberg

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:NMMA for having no top tier promotion (UFC/Invicta) fights, and not passing WP:RLN for only playing for semi-professional level. As contestant or offered opportunity for the Bachelor show does not show notability met. Cassiopeia( talk) 02:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia( talk) 02:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia( talk) 02:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia( talk) 02:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_February_23&oldid=1010245654"