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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Philip Tanasas

Philip Tanasas (  | 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 “tik tok” celebrity that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus falling short of GNG. Furthermore it should be noted that fame/popularity aren’t one and the same with notability. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator explanation. Wretchskull ( talk) 00:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment —@ Wretchskull, thanks for your contribution, I take it that you agree with my nom rationale but unfortunately, you may either !vote a keep, weak keep, delete, strong delete and a speedy delete. !voting a support may not be regarded nor recognized by the closing admin. At this juncture, you may have to change your !vote from a support to a delete instead. Thanks for your contributions. Celestina007 ( talk) 00:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Closing administrators can read. ☺ "Support removal" is clear even to me. It's not about the boldfaced words. Uncle G ( talk) 08:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Uncle G, 😂. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment I find one interview he did with ABS-CBN, more of a "man on the street" interview really, not sure how notable that makes him. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Oaktree b, very much correct, I saw that too but an interview isn’t independent of the subject thus is of no value to GNG which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 ( talk) 01:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete The page doesn't have enough info to be notable. Zai ^{( 💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 00:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — @ -Zai-, thanks for your contribution, I take it that you agree with my nom rationale but unfortunately, you may either !vote a keep, weak keep, delete, strong delete and a speedy delete. !voting a support may not be regarded nor recognized by the closing admin. At this juncture, you may have to change your !vote from a support to a delete instead. Thanks for your contributions. Celestina007 ( talk) 01:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – @ Celestina007 Thank you. I've changed my vote to a !delete. Zai ^{( 💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 12:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete There isn't any demonstration of notability in the sources provided. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 12:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete interviews do not count towards notability at all. This applies to any and all interviews. The sourcing here is not at all at the level we need to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Also drivel. KidAd • SPEAK 23:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, No sign of notability. Alex-h ( talk) 10:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is a lack of information to be considered as notable, so it definitely fails WP:GNG. Idunnox3 ( talk) 01:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Definite lack of RS. No signs of notability. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unsourced. scope_creep ^Talk 13:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Sachin Ambre

Sachin Ambre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Although unsourced at the point of this nomination as is customary, I did a WP:BEFORE search which showed subject of the article lacked in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him, which is an automatic GNG fail and also did not satisfy WP:DIRECTOR. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Got nothing useful on doing WP:Before. Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Same observation as nominator Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: fails WP:GNG defcon5 ( talk) 14:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 02:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Sonofstar ( talk) 16:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:DIRECTOR/GNG. For the one source on the page, see WP:IMDB. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 00:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Everett Robinson

Everett Robinson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player and manager, fails WP:BASE/N. Not convinced sources pass WP:GNG. Penale52 ( talk) 23:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 ( talk) 23:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Other sources include [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], et cetera. There's over a thousand hits for his name and "baseball" in the 1940s and 1950s, so I'll stop here, most of it is local coverage from the teams he managed but it exists. He moved into flooring after baseball, and finished second in the Michigan State League in batting: [6] [7] SportingFlyer T· C 23:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep having thought about it, he does fail WP:NBASE and didn't receive much press after he retired (only a couple of articles) but was so heavily mentioned in sources during his playing career and managerial career that WP:GNG's probably met. There was nothing wrong with this nom, though. SportingFlyer T· C 09:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Mild Keep/Comment Wikipedia generally doesn't consider minor league players as notable, unless they exhibit exceptional skill, from my understanding. Not sure if this is the case here. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep This guy played and managed in the minors for over 20 years. The sources might not be online, but there's no doubt they're out there, since baseball received a lot of newspaper coverage back then. - Bbny-wiki-editor ( talk) 02:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• They are online, you just need an archival newspaper subscription. SportingFlyer T· C 09:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - He does fail WP:NBASE as he never made the majors, and only played/managed in the minors. That being said, the sources highlighted by Flyer indicate that he received lots of newspaper coverage, especially from the local press for who he played/managed for. And after looking through them, I'm convinced there's enough newspaper coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. RolledOut34 // ( talk) // ( cont) 23:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Four Pines, California

Four Pines, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Another "got nothin'" case in Lake County, this time only appearing on the topos as a "(site)" in the 1950s and not at all before that. Aerials show nothing and searching finds nothing but false hits and clickbait. Mangoe ( talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• No mention in ISBN  9780738530307 or anywhere else that I can find. The fact that it's on the Sanhedrin Mountains in the Mendocino National Forest is suggestive of a campsite, but I have only limited access to campsite directories from here. This is effectively unverifiable. We know exactly two things: a name and a map pin. And the article before us is falsely telling the world that this is an unincorporated community. Uncle G ( talk) 08:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The wacky California naming system revealed by Caldwell Pines, California ( AfD discussion) suggests that it is four pine trees within said forest, but I have no evidence. Uncle G ( talk) 02:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Didn't turn up much, and most of what I found was for an old goat dairy near Los Angeles. Found a single reference to a Four Pines campsite that could be in Lake County, but not finding anything that would even verify what this is. Fails both WP:V and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 13:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Basketball Stevenson

Basketball Stevenson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I don't think I can PROD this because the PROD was removed in 2011, but this student sports club clearly fails WP:GNG, the only article about them was written by someone affiliated with the team, and I can't find anything else online that's not a wiki-mirror. SportingFlyer T· C 22:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 22:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 22:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No sign of notability whatsoever. The level this club play (or should that be played?) at is not going to make them notable. On top of that there does not appear to be any information about them for nearly a decade. Dunarc ( talk) 20:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Way below the standard we should be covering. Nigej ( talk) 06:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Zoomlion Ghana Limited

Zoomlion Ghana Limited (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Notability unclear. There are multiple references from sources that don't seem reliable and read like PR statements. nearlyevil 665 22:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 22:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 22:05, 13 April 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, 21 April 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in light of arguments presented. ( non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 09:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Fix Us

Fix Us (  | 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 film with no demonstrated notability. nearlyevil 665 21:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep If I can find reviews this will be stronger, but I'm finding enough evidence to suggest that reviews likely exist but aren't easily found for whatever reason. A likely reason is probably that Google doesn't index African news outlets properly (at least when it comes to NA based searches), something that I know has been an issue in the past as far as source searching goes. In any case, I've got articles from news outlets saying that it received a fairly big turn out and good reception, as well as coverage of them winning some major awards in Ghana. It's not a super strong keep on my end, but I think it's strong enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above comment. I, too, was able to find enough to pass GNG. Kolma8 ( talk) 09:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in light of arguments presented. ( non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 09:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Aloe Vera (film)

Aloe Vera (film) (  | 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 film. nearlyevil 665 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I've found quite a bit of coverage and fleshed out the article. I get the impression that there's likely more out there, but just isn't accessible for whatever reason (see my explanation in the other AfD). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the sources added by RotP. Seems like the movie is getting pretty significant coverage in the national media. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• keep per additions from RotP and from little search done, the subject does have coverage on the national media and deserves to be considered and more information and references added. Ampimd ( talk) 19:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per all of the above users' comments. Kolma8 ( talk) 09:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Baabani

Baabani (  | 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 film. nearlyevil 665 21:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 21:59, 13 April 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, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ 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. Sandstein 09:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Fellowship of Vocation

Fellowship of Vocation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

WP:GNG. Insufficient sources. Article cites none, and a cursory search finds none with depth and independence. This organization/model/step in the process of ordination appears to no longer exist, although in some places it has been renamed as the Diocese's "Exploring Ordination Group". Daask ( talk) 20:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Daask ( talk) 20:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Daask ( talk) 20:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• 'Merge to Church of Ireland. There is no reason for a seperate article on this topic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete or (failing that) merge to Church of Ireland. There is no indication (in the body, the sources or elsewhere) that the topic covered here meets the general notability criteria. Certainly not to the extent that it has notability independent of the church/organisation with which the topic is associated. If the limited content from this title is merged to Church of Ireland, I'm not sure a redirect is even required. (Not every concept or term needs its own title or redirect.) Guliolopez ( talk) 12:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- I do not think such an "exploring ordination" group would be notable enough to need an article. At worst, merge. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, The group is not notable enough to have an article. Alex-h ( talk) 11:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Cork–Limerick–Galway corridor

Cork–Limerick–Galway corridor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

None of the sources actually refer to this corridor. Fails WP:GEOLAND. I dont think a corridor arbitrarily drawn between three cities is notable. Eopsid ( talk) 20:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Pure synthesis. Unclear why the external link deliberately mistitles the site. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Looking at sources in the article itself, none seem to mention the subject directly (to the extent, as noted by Reywas92, that one seems to entirely misrepresent the linked content and its title). Looking at the sources outside of the article, while a WP:BEFORE search returns some pages/content which refer to the subject, most are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. And, while there are some pieces like this where the subject is mentioned, it is only in passing. I can find no coverage where the subject is the primary topic. Given that this is effectively a list-article I would also question whether WP:NLIST applies as a deletion criteria. (Wikipedia is the only place in the universe, for example, where we find a list of "third level institutions in Cork/Limerick/Galway". This is an entirely arbitrary grouping.) Mine is a "delete" recommendation (based on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:GNG and WP:NLIST criteria). Guliolopez ( talk) 08:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom, a load of OR and synthesis. Spleodrach ( talk) 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom. Sonofstar ( talk) 18:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Okomfour Kwadee

Okomfour Kwadee (  | 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 artist. nearlyevil 665 20:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 20:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete doesn't appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 06:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, Presidency of the Guild is notable and verifiable through new sources. ( non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 10:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Evans Hunter

Evans Hunter (  | 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 personality. WP:BIO1E with references provided. nearlyevil 665 20:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 20:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. How is the argument of WP:BIO1E being used, when he clearly had significant roles in several films as well as a notable position as the president of the Ghana Actors Guild? The article is referenced (although needs more). Did you even do a WP:BEFORE? ExRat ( talk) 10:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Record fair

Record fair (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

A dictionary definition. There is no reliable sourcing found via BEFORE that discusses the concept of record fairs as a whole, and this is the only source I'm able to find at all. There are some notable record fairs, which have articles, but this doesn't appear to have one valid redirect target. PROD declined without explanation, so we're here. StarM 19:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• We do not seem to have an article on consumer fairs, which ISBN  9789783352506 tells me is not quite the same as a trade fair. Uncle G ( talk) 08:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Reply to Uncle_G, I think some trade show/fairs have a consumer element, where others are industry only at least here in the US. Record fair sounds more unique than swap meet to me as well if a record fair is music trade only, so the parallel is there. StarM 13:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC). reply

    • Examples of consumer fairs are book fairs, antique fairs, auto shows, and video shows […]

      —  ISBN  9780075497004 page 310

      A record fair is a consumer fair, just with records. Most of what is said in this article generalizes to consumer fairs and could probably be renamed and refactored into an article on consumer fairs. Uncle G ( talk) 02:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete I think in this case I can safely say this is a dictionary defintion. It does not in any way cover when or where they may have occured or anything else. We would need sourcing to show that these exist and happen in a way that people cover them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per nom, clear case of WP:DICDEF, once again, no idea why it has been de-proded CommanderWaterford ( talk) 12:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: WP:DICDEF Case. Sonofstar ( talk) 20:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Massimiliano Caroletti

Massimiliano Caroletti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

this appears to be largely dependent on the idea that notability is inherited from his wife, which isn't actually a criteria for inclusion. Everything I can find about Caroletti are basically gossip rags relating to his wife and the fact that she is a porn star. TAXIDICAE💰 18:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Sonofstar ( talk) 18:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Aamir Tameem

Aamir Tameem (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The actor fails WP:NACTOR as acted in two films Katha (2009 film) and Prayanam in non-lead roles. The content of the article is also objectionable and suffers from autobiography writing, COI. Chirota ( talk) 18:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chirota ( talk) 18:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Chirota ( talk) 18:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chirota ( talk) 18:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: At present, the subject fails NACTOR aa he does not have multiple number of notable roles in movies. This is also a case of high COI. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions threshold. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, Subject did not have important roles, fails WP:NACTOR. Alex-h ( talk) 11:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable Actor. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 03:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• DELETE For now, the subject fails WP:NACTOR and he does not have multiple number of notable roles in movies. TryingToDo ( talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or GNG. A non-notable actor. -- Kbabej ( talk) 16:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy keep: looks to be withdrawn by nominator but not properly closed, and no support for deletion ( non-admin closure) Elli ( talk | contribs) 16:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

JTA Supermarkets

JTA Supermarkets (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article was created by company employee. No verifiable sources found to establish notability for encyclopedic inclusion of this business. Megtetg34 ( talk) 18:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Per the constructive and fair feedback of editors. Withdraw Megtetg34 ( talk) 00:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Despite assertions that there aren't sources, the article itself contains several sources, and did so when it was nominated for deletion. There's some issues with the quality of the writing (mostly WP:TONE), and additional sources and expansion/cleanup would be a good idea, but the subject of the article seems to pass WP:GNG easily. -- Jayron 32 18:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Thanks for your comment. For clarification: Source 1 is from the company's own website. Source 2, 5 and 10 are from the same website. Per Wikipedia policy that counts as 1 source. Source 3, 8, 9 and 11 are from the same website. Per Wikipedia policy that counts as 1 source. Source 6 is dead/not existent. Source 7 isn't about the company, it is about an employee assisting a disabled man, lacking WP:ORGDEPTH. Megtetg34 ( talk) 20:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep The solution to a poorly referenced article about a notable business is to improve the referencing and rewrite the article. Deletion is not the answer. Quite easily, I found this article with four paragraphs about the history of the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Ok, thanks Cullen³²⁸. Megtetg34 ( talk) 00:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Scotland Yard (band)

Scotland Yard (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND. I can't find any significant coverage. The band's site used to compile some reviews from the press, but there's no notable publications listed there as far as I can tell. Lennart97 ( talk) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 ( talk) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 ( talk) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete When I performed a Google search, "The Scotland Yard Gospel Choir" started showing up half way down the first ten results and dominated the second page. Since that choir is not notable and has higher ranking on Google, I doubt that going any further will result in reliable sources to support either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. The article certainly does not help support the claim for notability. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Zarru

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

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "250528" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Vakilabad, Nir

Vakilabad, Nir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has not been reported even in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "025285" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Tang-e Huni

Tang-e Huni (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has not been reported even in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "213621" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Suteh Zar

Suteh Zar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "030531" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 02:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Sheykhan, Kermanshah

Sheykhan, Kermanshah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has not been reported even in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "051843" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 17:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 02:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Shah Niaz

Shah Niaz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "166168" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 16:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 16:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 16:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 02:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Saruj, Iran

Saruj, Iran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has not been reported even in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "112395" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Sar Cheshmeh, Khuzestan

Sar Cheshmeh, Khuzestan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND:

Its population has been reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. Ctrl+F "067463" here.

See Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed for more information. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 16:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 16:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 16:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. WP:GEOLAND states, "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." That and WP:NTEMP formed the consensus to keep the article in the previous AfD. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • One needs to prove this is a village in the first place, not an abadi. To the closing admin, please note Special:Permalink/1016886834#Large batch deletion probably needed. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 00:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No evidence that this was ever a legally-recognised populated place as required by WP:GEOLAND. Abadis are not legally-recognised populated places as they include wells, farms, pumps, factories etc. EDIT: looking at the pervious AFD for this article, it is a big pity it was not deleted then, but too many people then were simply ignoring the requirement that the place be legally recognised. FOARP ( talk) 12:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Judy Coser

Judy Coser (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The subject of the article contacted Oklahoma State University to request article removal M072020 ( talk) 16:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete I took out two museums mentioned in the article, as they did not check out. That leaves only the Gilcrease museum collection and coverage that is fairly primary.--- Possibly ( talk) 16:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per request. Furius ( talk) 23:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete clearly not a notable enough person that we need an article on them when they do not want one. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Far away from the notability
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 03:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:BIODEL; subject has requested deletion, and is relatively unknown. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

BoraTwenT2

BoraTwenT2 (  | 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:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. ... discospinster _talk 16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete My quick Google search revealed nothing that helps the subject meet WP:GNG and certainly not WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 03:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Per a BEFORE, I could not find anything resembling a RS to support this article. The current sourcing is unacceptable; Tik Tok is not a RS. Promotional article on a non-notable subject. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Roman Schomburg

Roman Schomburg (  | 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 actor. Search finds nothing more than social media accounts and agency listings etc., and the sources cited are no better, only online CVs and passing mentions as cast member, hence fails WP:GNG. The few film appearances aren't anywhere near major enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR notability, either.

A duplicate of this exists in the draft space, rejected earlier at AfC on notability grounds and awaiting re-review; meanwhile this was published with the same issues. I'm not quite sure what the process is, but I'd say if this AfD results in deletion, the draft probably needs to go as well? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

 Note: The cut & paste move (& technical copyright violation created thereby) has been repaired by a history merge; the draft no longer exists.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 18:06, 13 April 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, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Logs: 2021-04 ↻ restored, 2021-04 ✗ G6

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. MBisanz ^talk 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

MetaLAB (at) Harvard

MetaLAB (at) Harvard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes notability criteria. Current sourcing is either from primary sources (either Harvard itself, or the Harvard Gazette), or are simple mentions. In fact, at least 6 of the current sources do not appear to mention the lab at all (#s 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 18). Searches turned up much of the same trivial mentions. There is another organization called MetaLab, Ltd., which is indeed notable, and another entity called Metalab, also notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Wow, it researches the intersection of art, design, society, and artificial intelligence? What does that even mean? Has there been any meaningful output of... whatever this thing is, beyond a couple fluff pieces and gallery websites including its exhibitions in lists? This is fairly dissonant with the description of an idea foundry with a leading position in the field of experimental arts and humanities. jp× g 07:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Jahres-Bericht über die Fortschritte der chemischen Technologie für Fabrikanten, Chemiker, Pharmaceuten, Hütten- und Forstleute und Cameralisten

Jahres-Bericht über die Fortschritte der chemischen Technologie für Fabrikanten, Chemiker, Pharmaceuten, Hütten- und Forstleute und Cameralisten (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Entirely unsourced with no claim of notability. Gaioa ( T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Gaioa ( T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Gaioa ( T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Gaioa ( T C L) 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete not every scientific journal every published is notable. There is nothing here indicating this work was notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Courtesy ping @ EdJohnston and Randykitty: who previously discussed the journal's notability on the talk page. –  Joe ( talk) 08:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• If kept, should probably be moved to the slighter shorter Jahres-Bericht über die Leistungen der chemischen Technologie, which was the journal's title for most of its history. –  Joe ( talk) 08:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. Sources for a century-old German scientific periodical are going to be hard to find, but given that it was published for nearly a hundred years, is held in many library collections, [8] and the founding editor is notable and has articles in other languages, I think it's reasonable to assume that they are out there. I've added a few details and references to the article. –  Joe ( talk) 09:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: As I said before, I would expect a journal this old to be notable, but frankly, I can't find anything. Pinging DGG who might be able to come up with something. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. I found and added two brief reviews of this journal in another journal (both in the same other journal). They're not independent of each other, so the case for WP:GNG is weak, but I think that and the other in-passing references already in the article might barely be enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep With the work of Joe Roe and David Eppstein, it's reached the point where holding onto the page makes sense, I think. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep mostly on its historical merits. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Gbagbo Junior Magbi

Gbagbo Junior Magbi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Doesn't pass WP:BASIC. Last Afd was corrupted. scope_creep ^Talk 14:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Should pass WP:BASIC now, I've added sources, there's heaps available to keep expanding this (in English, French, Swahili, probably Arabic...) SportingFlyer T· C 14:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep very easily passes WP:NFOOTY with a dozen fully-pro games. To follow up on SF above, there are sources in Arabic ( example). Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 14:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per comments at last AFD. An article needing improving is not reason to delete. Giant Snowman 14:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes NFOOTY.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 01:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment A wall o' keep. I can think withdrawing the nomination if everybody is ok with it. Nomination Withdrawn. Excellent work. Thanks. scope_creep ^Talk 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Mauricio Ramos (businessman)

Mauricio Ramos (businessman) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Last Afd was corrupt. scope_creep ^Talk 14:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. The last AFD was heavily influenced by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko and other UPE editors and should be disregarded. MER-C 12:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

AFD is not cleanup. We only do votes here on the basis of notability. Being a CEO of nearly fortune 500 company is a very big notable achievement. Wrenaudra ( talk) 15:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - there isn't sufficient coverage of this person (as opposed to the company they head) to warrant a discrete article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I would advise to check the sources like Forbes, CNN, WSJ and many others. They are enough to qualify for GNG. Wrenaudra ( talk) 15:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. We have seen enough UPE and AFD manipulation for this article. MarioGom ( talk) 18:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Please modify your vote with proper reasoning here instead of policy guidelines. This is AFD not noticeboard discussion. Wrenaudra ( talk) 15:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

No. If you think there are enough reliable sources, feel free to bring them up. MarioGom ( talk) 19:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep CEO of a quite big company Millicom which have more than 55 millione customer. As per in last AFD Rogermx also pointed that there are more than enough sources to make him pass for GNG. Not sure why it got nominated again despite the lasted AFD. Sources like Forbes, CNN, TD Ameritrade Network, Wall Street Journal are WP:RS and are way more than enough to make him qualify for GNG. Wrenaudra ( talk) 15:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC) — Wrenaudra ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  WSJ? No, this is part of a business directory. It does not establish notability. There seems to be not enough reliable sources to establish notability independently of Millicom. MarioGom ( talk) 19:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete No significant coverage or notability. Also, can't force notability, as the socks have tried in the past on this guy. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, redirect to Millicom and fully protect the redirect. Regardless of the size of the bludgeon that is being swung by the socks in this article's obit, it is and remains undisclosed paid-for spam about a non-notable individual. Any potential future recreations should go through AfC. Blablubbs| talk 14:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Linnéa Åberg

Linnéa Åberg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL and I'm seeing no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Some may argue that playing in the Damallsvenskan carries a presumption of notability but Åberg has played fewer than 200 mins in that league so can't even really claim notability from that. Searches centred on Swedish sources mainly come back with profile pages on the usual wide-ranging football database websites and articles about namesakes in other fields, such as graphic design and reality TV. I have only managed to find one article in a WP:RS about her; this transfer announcement. The only source I found that wasn't completely trivial was this Wordpress blog entry. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford ( talk) 16:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 01:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - At this time not notable. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 09:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Alex-h ( talk) 11:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Habitual nominator of women's footballer articles states here "Some may argue that playing in the Damallsvenskan carries a presumption of notability but Åberg". Yep - ask Number 57 and Fenix down what years the top Swedish women's league (the Damallsvenskan) was included in WP:NFOOTBALL and its WP:ESSAY WP:FPL? Did it cover the same year she had 20 caps for Sunnanå SK in the top Swedish league? Who added and who removed the top Swedish women's league from the WP:FPL essay? Regards. Hmlarson ( talk) 01:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Even if we did argue that the Damallsvenskan was a FPL between 2013 and 2015, when Åberg played her few minutes of football, there is clear consensus within the Wikipedia community that a skin of teeth passing of NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively. If you do believe that Åberg meets GNG then please provide multiple reliable sources addressing her directly and in depth. Thanks. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Yeah, N:FOOTBALL on English Wikipedia is completely unreliable for women footballers. It excludes the majority of top women's leagues around the world. Thanks for demonstrating once again. Hmlarson ( talk) 00:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, Fails WP:GNG. No indepth, reliable coverage. Sonofstar ( talk) 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Kyle Hupfer

Kyle Hupfer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

• Stated to be advertisement Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 13:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• delete this is an advertisement, it's nothing more than a glorified resume/linkedIn and he does not meet WP:NPOL by virtue of being a potential future candidate for office. His position in the Indiana Republican Party is also notable and thus fails inclusion criteria. TAXIDICAE💰 13:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. He has not held any role that confers automatic passage of WP:NPOL just by virtue of holding it, and the sourcing is not good enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold an NPOL-passing role. Bearcat ( talk) 14:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Submitter created this article both in draft space and in article space, which is often done to game the system.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Reply This was my fault and was done out of ignorance, not out of a way to game the system. I created a draft but then noticed in the Indiana Republican Party entry there was a red link for Kyle Hupfer to create the article. I thought I could merge my draft with the created article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrKatannga ( talk • contribs)
• Delete - Does not meet political notability, but draft also does not address general notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Less Unless ( talk) 17:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As per Bearcat. MrsSnoozyTurtle ( talk) 12:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Indiana political party chairs have Wikipedia entries. The current and previous Indiana democrat chairs have wikipedia pages ( /info/en/?search=Mike_Schmuhl, /info/en/?search=John_Zody) and the previous Indiana Republican chair has a page ( /info/en/?search=Jeff_Cardwell). The current Indiana GOP chair qualifies as a major local political figure.
• comment references to potential runs for office were deleted and as chairman of a state political party, this qualifies as "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."
• comment as a local political figure who's received significant press coverage, this entry qualifies.
• comment Reply: topic is notable as a local political figure who has received significant press coverage. Previous Indiana Republican Chairmen have Wikipedia pages (see Jeff Cardwell).— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrKatannga ( talk • contribs)

MrKatannga I will say this only once, you only get one vote. You need to sign your messages and you should not respond to every single comment here as it WP:BLUDGEONS the discussion. Lastly, please read this essay. The fact that other chairs have articles is irrelevant, they are notable independent of their party chair and finally, your comments go after other comments in chronological order. TAXIDICAE💰 15:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Got it, thanks for the clarification. Article creation is new to me and I want to do it the right way. I'll read the essay you linked now. MrKatannga — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Based on the timeline, Zody's article was only created to support his failed candidacy. He would probably be eligible for deletion. Schmuhl has only been a political consultant and may also be eligible for deletion. Cardwell has the smallest article of the three, but at least he was an Indianapolis city councillor. Based on only the sourcing in the article, he may also be eligible for deletion, and actually did have his article deleted back in 2009. They may all have claims to notability, but just because they have articles doesn't mean they'll be kept at a deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T· C 21:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is an NPOL fail per WP:POLOUTCOMES: Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons.. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 17:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Other stuff exists is not a valid reason to keep. In the US the person who is in all real respects the actual leader of a state political party is the highest elected official from that party. Party chairs are just functionaries. State ones are not default notable and we do not have enough sourcing here to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete No government offices held. Other claims of being political commentators etc needs to be supported by reliable and independent sources. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 02:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL/ WP:GNG, written promotionally. SportingFlyer T· C 21:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fail per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Sonofstar ( talk) 17:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Thronmax

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

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

G11 borderline eligible article on a non notable notable organization attempting to promote their brand via Wikipedia. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus fail to satisfy WP:NCORP. A before search shows unreliable sources such as this and other websites to purchase their products. In all, i am unable to locate any cogent reliable source. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Beyond the fact that this appears to be a giant press release, there are no sources in the article that would establish notability, nor could I find any sources in a Google search. Alansohn ( talk) 14:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• I find myself thinking, after reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deniz Unay, that this is undisclosed paid editing, and that the copy came from the client. Uncle G ( talk) 15:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  Agreed, and I have blocked the "article's" creator. Delete. MER-C 14:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete There are some more news about this in Google news, but I didnt see any notable publications. They were mostly reviwes by small gaming publications. Lesliechin1 ( talk) 08:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Brochure article. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep ^Talk 12:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Yung Baller

Yung Baller (  | 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 fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER and in general lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search reveals hits is self published and user generated sources which are unreliable. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, concur that this young singer does not satisfy SINGER nor GNG.-- Eostrix  ( ^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails GNG no reliable sources available. Sanketio31 ( talk) 17:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Living Water Christian School

Living Water Christian School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The notion that every school that teaches any students under the US system who are in grades 10-12, and in any other system in a local equivalent similar level, is notable by default and as long as we can verrify it actual existed or once existed we should have an article on it, is just not sustainable. The once proposed exception that we limit this to schools that currently exist is just too presentist to justify. We need to move towards requiring at least some level of sourcing on all schools that is indepdent of the school, from a reliable source, and I would suggest we mandate that it be at least significant. This article is sourced only to the schools own website. The only other things I could find we sources that compile information on literally every schools that exists within a certain area. Wikipedia is not a directory or a buyers guide, we do not create comprehensive databases of all products, but that is essentially what most of the sources that list this school are. They exist because schools sell the product of education, although the money even for private schools like this does not often come directly from the consumers, but we have to see most of the sources that mention this institution as either buyers guides or as its own material on itself. This is not enough to justify an article. It is hard to tell for sure about this school, but there are many institutions that use the name school that are sponsored by churches that have primarily a religious purpose, even if they do engage in some non-religious curriculum. For example there is no evidence that I see that this institution is actually accredited by any governing body. I see no clear evidence that if this place operated in the same way on the college level it would pass our notability rules, that is because at the college level we actually require some level of accredidation to be considered default notable, at the high school level we do not demand any level of accredidation for reasons that many stem from the people who developed these rules not comprehending how many marginally to not at all accredited Christian schools existed in the US in even the 1990s, the phenomenon may have become more common since then. Not every indepdent Pentecostal Church that has 75 congregants is notable, and there is no reason to think that every time such a church includes at least 1 student between grades 9-12 in its educational outreach that automatically makes it notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Would you consider a more concise description of the subject and reason for deletion? You could then add the editorial stuff and other issues in a comment beneath it. Right now it is very difficult to understand what the problem is and why the page should be deleted. Hyperion35 ( talk) 18:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia is drowning in druk but whenever I try to prop delete it other editors comes along and remove them without even trying to improve it. We need to stop letting people create such unsourced or sourced only to the subject website rubbish. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• OK, here goes. This is a minor school with no existing sources that are indepdent and nothing at all indicating that it is in any way notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Google news shows a few reports (sports and Coronavirus cases) associated with a similarly named school in North Carolina, while a Google Books search brings up a range of directories of schools which don't have useful previews (so it isn't clear whether coverage is for this school, or if the coverage is significant enough to count for notability). A general web search didn't seem to bring up much in the way of significant coverage - mainly directory type entries.. I've yet to see much in the way of evidence that GNG is met for this subject, so leaning to Delete. Nigel Ish ( talk) 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete for a lack of available WP:RS and a failure to meet WP:NSCHOOL. ThadeusOfNazereth ^{Talk to Me!} 19:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - to Rosenberg, Texas per WP:ATD and longstanding practice. 8.48.2.14 ( talk) 20:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- We need some criteria for which high schools are notable. I would suggest that teaching to age 18 should be among the criteria, which this would fail. We used to allow all High Schools, because it was impossible to stop their pupils creating articles about their own schools, but perhasp we can now be more discerning. The article has no indication of the number of pupils. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • So wait, we allowed all high school because we could not stop drek otherwise? That is a horrible way to set up precedent. We have things like verifiability and GNG that mean we should require relible indepdent sources at the least. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, because this doesn't even generate a second page of Google results, and I cannot find a single independent RS that is actually about the subject. I recognise the local consensus that schools are inherently notable even when there are no sources cited, albeit in defiance of NOTDIR, but in this case there are just... no sources. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Unified mechanics theory

Unified mechanics theory (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The subject is not notable and it is not an established theory. Very few results in google scholar (all from one author; the 2016 works are unrelated) and practically no citations about it. After PROD'ing the article was slightly expanded and few references were added. All of them are from the same author. The physics content looks very bizarre. I suspect WP:FRINGE. Bonus: the picture. SimoneD89 ( talk) 11:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete No secondary sources, primary sources published in borderline journals, article written by a WP:SPA. Tercer ( talk) 11:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - strictly speaking, the first source, a book, is secondary. Many of the journals look legitimate to me (i.e., respectable impact factors). The real issue is that 11 of the 13 publication are coauthored by Basaran. Boghog ( talk) 12:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

What makes a journal legitimate is not the impact factor, but whether it does proper peer review. This is of course very hard to find out, but MDPI journals are famously bad, and I'm personally familiar with the torrent of nonsense that comes out of Entropy. Heck, right now there's another AfD going on about some bizarre stuff that got published in Entropy: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mechanothermodynamics. Tercer ( talk) 18:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Basaran has stated, in an MDPI journal, that it is in fact the same stuff [9]. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Now that is an astounding coincidence. Tercer ( talk) 20:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment I would say that the Basaran references are primary sources because he is in all the publications where the name Unified mechanics theory appears. We need reliable, secondary and independent references. I would consider the book primary, dependent and not yet reliable (because it was published only two months ago and it takes time to show reliability). -- SimoneD89 ( talk) 12:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - The key word here is "independent" which I would agree to. "Time" is irrelevant, except to the extent it takes time for independent reviews. Boghog ( talk) 16:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the nomination and Tercer's comment above. Entropy, Metals, and Applied Mechanics are all MDPI journals and so must be regarded skeptically. The book is by the inventor and so is a primary and dependent source. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It is also worth saying that the current text is impenetrable. Even if it or related ideas were notable under other names, WP:TNT applies. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment/delete – It has the feel of pseudoscience using WP as a platform. It is also presented as grandiose (as being more "complete" than Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics combined) but without any rigour. IMO this is does not belong in WP, and probably fails notability too. — Quondum 17:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete I was not aware that there was a need to unify Newtonian dynamics and thermodynamics. Probably because there is none. I have absolutely no clue what the article is trying to say about the hundred year old man and the boy, either. This looks like fringe nonsense. Is this mentioned in any college physics textbooks? Are people publishing on this other than the one crackpot who is promoting the idea? Hyperion35 ( talk) 18:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• DO NOT DELETE- Unified Mechanics Theory name is recent, however the first Ph.D. dissertation on the topic was in 1997. US Navy Office of Naval Research started funding it with a Young Investigator Award [one of 27 scientists US-wide] in 1997. Until recently it was referred to as a Thermodynamic Theory for Damage Mechanics. It has been funded by federal grants in the US and EU in millions of dollars. [Yes, there is a recent EU grant]. Please do not treat the theory as a new religion. It is not. Please read the hundreds of papers, PhD dissertations, books, and watch lectures, then tell us where the formulation has an error. There is a very robust scientific discussion group of 4,300 + scientists, on the Unified Mechanics Theory group on LinkedIn. If you trust your knowledge on the topic please join us and discuss your ideas. Sorry, we do no allow speculations. You must have mathematical derivations to make your point Not just a keybord. Unfortunately, you cannot hide your identity on Linkedin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemalbasaran ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • LinkedIn, like all other social media, is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. We are obligated to base our scientific and technical articles upon peer-reviewed references, with a strong preference for secondary sources; moreover, we use established terminology, not neologisms. In addition, we have stringent policies against editing with a Conflict of Interest, which I encourage you to review. Moreover, given the extent of the verbatim overlap between your comment and that of Tragab above, and the fact that Tragab uploaded a photo of Cemal Basaran that they claimed as their "own work", I encourage you to read the policy against sockpuppetry. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is not a broadly accepted idea, and it does not have the level of coverage we would need to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• DO NOT Delete Using entropy to unify thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics has been extensively studied in the past 15 years. Secondary sources are added.( talk) 20:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Please see WP:SYNTH. Using old articles to bolster the notability of a new topic or newly rechristened terminology is not how Wikipedia articles are written. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• So: not peer-reviewed but in pay-to-publish journals, all articles actually addressing the subject are by its inventor, and the inventor says that it's the same as Mechanothermodynamics ( AfD discussion) which is in the same boat, and invented by someone that the inventor here is friends with on LinkedIn? Uncle G ( talk) 20:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: This is no science that I recognise. Despite the papers it feels to be a hoax, pseudo-science, WP:FRINGE. The diagram is... odd, and it is up for deletion on Commons. Except that it was not started on 1 April I had almost considered it to be an All Fools Day prank. Now, seeing the sudden influx of adherents as if for a ballot, I see it more as reputation building - using Wikipedia to build a reputation, not using Wikipedia to report on a reputation already built Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - DO NOT DELETE, Unified Mechanics Theory and Mechanothermodynamics are not the same things. In Unified Mechanics Theory entropy evolution happens along the Thermodynamic State Index axis according to the Boltzmann entropy formulation and thermodynamic fundamental equation of the material. In Mechanothermodynamics entropy is used as a degradation metric, however, dissipation evolution follows an empirical equation obtained from testing the material. If you are interested in the true scientific discussion please join the Unified Mechanics Theory group on LinkedIn. There are 4, 300 scientists who are eager to see your mathematical derivations proving UMT wrong. Cemalbasaran ( talk) 21:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • " mechanothermodynamics, which is essentially a theory almost identical to the unified mechanics theory". Which person with your name should we believe? And why on Earth do you think that LinkedIn is what we are looking for, rather than properly peer-reviewed articles, including ones showing that this has acceptance by others? Uncle G ( talk) 21:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment DO NOT DELETE- If you want to see acceptance of a theory by others, In science, there is a website called Google Scholar. You go see who cited the work. The first paper on Unified Mechanics Theory was published in 1998 in ASME J of Electronic Packaging, since then every paper I have, except GNR and CNT papers, uses this theory. Hiding your identity does not give any credence to your comments. Prof. Cemal Basaran. Cemalbasaran ( talk) 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
      • You get one chance to express the fact that it be not deleted. One. You may make as many other comments as you believe will help your case. However, experinece shows that argumentative folk at deletion discussions, especially those whose arguments do not rely on policy, come under the heading of "Methinks (s)he doth protest too much!" Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Actually Google Scholar, hyperlinked helpfully above and used by the nominator right at the start of this discussion, shows no papers from 1998 at all, and the citations for Cemal Basaran are, it transpires, all by Cemal Basaran. So you're really going to have to actually cough up some citations of these peer-reviewed papers from independent people that you claim, because the story from Google Scholar is that what you are claiming is false. Uncle G ( talk) 22:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment @ Tragab:, knock it off with the obvious "DO NOT DELETE" sockpuppetry. We don't use DND as a vote!, so it's screamingly obvious it's you. These votes! have been struck on suspicion of sockpuppetry. Nate • ( chatter) 22:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment The "theory" seems to be more useful in relation to steel and other materials. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Cemal Basaran, very selectively. The theory comes from a distinguished senior engineer who argues that since equations that successfully model material fatigue can be written in a form that look something like Newton's laws of motion this reveals a new principle of nature. The engineering is difficult and is fine. The problem is in trying to create a physical theory for why the engineering works. The materials models work well, which is why the many papers, but the basic physics for this theory does not exist. Arguments from analogy are not sufficient. For a similar discussion see the AfD for constructal law. StarryGrandma ( talk) 11:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. Too soon to have a redirect. StarryGrandma ( talk) 20:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

One can always expand Basaran's article with a discussion about his research. I would not suggest to use the information contained in the article because the physics content is bizarre and it is not yet recognized as a physical theory. If we are talking about a model used in engineering science, other questions arise: is it his model? are his contributions relevant/recognized/notable to be included in his biography? I don't support redirecting the page because the name is not yet established in the academic community. One can compare the numbers of results and citations between unified mechanics theory ~ O(10), and constructal law ~ O(1 000). I would have suggested deletion for both. In engineering science I expect much higher numbers. -- SimoneD89 ( talk) 12:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree with SimoneD89. Until we have reliable sources attributing something to a person or describing a person's research, we should avoid implication of such an attribution in an article on the person. Because of the apparent overlap between similar approaches by several different people, it seems unclear that we can make any such attribution. Just because someone has published about something does not mean it worth a mention – I would wait until it becomes more generally noticed/known. Looking at Cemal Basaran, I wonder whether the subject is qualified as being notable for WP at all. Virtually every semi-decent engineer or professor that I know can boast similar accomplishments, and the references are all sub-par. — Quondum 13:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Fellow of the ASME. Every semi-decent engineer or professor you know is a Fellow of the ASME or similar? You have high criteria for semi-decent. References are fine for someone meeting WP:NPROF. StarryGrandma ( talk) 14:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Touché. I concede my error on that point. — Quondum 23:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Without commenting either way on Basaran's wiki-notability, I have to say that the content of this article is so bad that an adequately selective merge would be no merge at all. Not even the references could be carried over; they are primary, recent, published in marginal-at-best journals, and unacknowledged in the literature. Nor is leaving a redirect a particularly good idea, since the title is not a plausible search term. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barejsha02 which interested parties are invited to contribute relevant evidence to Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Do not delete:Unified mechanics theory is a very promising theory. The theory uses Boltzmann's statistical mechanics in conjunction with the Newton's laws of motion. However, the work on "Dynamic Equilibrium Equations in Unified Mechanics Theory ( https://doi.org/10.3390/applmech2010005)" used Lagrangian to derive the equation of motion. The theory is very useful in life-prediction models — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.232 ( talk) 14:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Another primary source in an MDPI journal, which counts for nothing. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Struck. Either loutsocking or meatpuppetry, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barejsha02. -- Blablubbs| talk 18:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:TOOSOON.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 14:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe ( talk) 17:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC). reply
• Comment: The spirited defence of the concept plus sock and meat puppetry is explained somewhat in WP:ACADEME, an essay for all participants here. It deal with the huge difference between an encyclopaedia and the world of academe Fiddle Faddle 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  Thanks. I'd forgotten about that essay. StarryGrandma ( talk) 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma ( talk) 20:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: It's very simple. Despite all the responses from supporter(s), I don't see any assertion that there are any reliable, independent, secondary sources to support the notability of this topic. (And when it comes to reliable, independent, and secondary having several sources with two out of the three is not sufficient.)-- Srleffler ( talk) 12:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is not the place for WP:FRINGE or WP:SYNTH. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 08:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Xpress Movers

Xpress Movers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This is a removal / house moving company. The article is written like an advert, the references are all dead, google news returns no RS reviews of the company. This company has a social media presence but doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion on WP. Desertarun ( talk) 10:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I have NO idea why this was citation tagged nine years ago and not filed for deletion back then. No sources, independent or otherwise, no evidence of notability. Ravenswing 11:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Special:Diff/284463661 was 12 years ago, and Special:Diff/759453248 was four. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 12:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It was citation tagged 12 years ago because it is too hard to nominate things for deletion, and when you do so you open yourself up to venoumous hateful attacks by the defenders of the status quo who believe more in grandfather clause enforcement than a Jim Crow election official in 1952 Mississippi. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete No evidence of notability, written in a style unbefitting an encyclopedia, no viable citations in the article. Also, is one of the three references just a SourceForge link to Media Player Classic? PraiseVivec ( talk) 12:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • " notability source". Uncle G ( talk) 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, it really is. All those three sources are utter garbage. One is explicitly a press release site, the second is one, and the putative contribution this company alleges to have made to Media Player Classic is that one of the contributors has an email address from the subject. Ravenswing 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Not notable. Wasraw ( talk) 13:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Non notable. Seaweed ( talk) 19:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment I guess my frustration at the difficulty of deleting things on Wikipedia got the better of me. I would like to apologize for being too harsh in my criticism of hard core inclusionists. Still it is clear that citation tagging is not working. Nothing inproves. They languish for 12 years. That is an unacceptably high amount of time. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete company is not notable and all the sources currently on the page are links that no longer exist Redoryxx ( talk) 18:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 03:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails GNG, no reliable sources available. Sanketio31 ( talk) 17:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 13:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Jakob Ørsahl

Jakob Ørsahl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Footballer has never played a game in a professional league, only 1 cup game against an amateur team as well as being recently signed in a semi-professional league. Geschichte ( talk) 10:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 13:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - has some coverage, for example this loan announcement and this transfer announcement but not enough for WP:GNG in my view. Failing WP:NFOOTBALL means that the GNG pass would need to be clear cut for the article to be kept. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford ( talk) 16:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 01:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 03:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. Sonofstar ( talk) 19:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Gaskispor

Gaskispor (  | 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. I couldn't find any sources, but perhaps people that speak Turkish could find something from its 27 year existence. Anarchyte ( talk • work) 09:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( talk • work) 09:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( talk • work) 09:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( talk • work) 09:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply