Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< February 10	February 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia, California

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

Among the Monterey County "populated places""unincorporated communities" are several spots that, research tends to show, have their origin and perhaps their sole existence as resorts of one sort or another. There is still a resort (really, a motel) at this location, and I cannot find evidence that there has ever been anything else here: the "library" shown in the article turns out, once you click through to additional information, to be "the Harlan home at Lucia, also post office and one of the coast county libraries", and also happens to be the proprietors' home. Things are a bit croggled by references to the nearby peak, and a claim of 2000 people living in the area has to be taken as applying to the larger locale, as there is no way there could ever have been a town here of that size: there simply isn't enough land for that. THis seems to waver somewhere between a non-notable resort and a locale. Mangoe (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zackary (2017 film)

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

PROD was The only criterion of

WP:GNG

, I believe that it should be deleted. Please note that the five 'references' used are all press releases and rehashings of each other. No reviews found.

Contested with comment Removed some movie award references and added the reference of an interview/review about the movie too. Added Culver City Film Festival (international and acknowledged festival based in LA) reference.

I do not believe that the Culver City Film Festival award is enough for this to pass our notability criteria when every other criterion under NFILM is failed and when GNG is failed. This is a non-notable 7 minute film with a very minor award and no published reviews. The source added is not a review; it is an interview with the director where he expresses his opinion on the film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NFILM, minor award not enough to satisfy guidelines. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I couldn't really find anything to establish notability either. The amount of false positives didn't make it easier to search either, honestly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:NFILM. No major awards, not enough coverage to pass GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Although Il Mattino is definitely a reliable source, all the rest of the coverage is it local Naples area newspapers, which republish LA festival press-release. In brief, one good reference is not enough to support notability. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is probably an undeclared

WP:COI contribution of Margaret bali0, an account that created articles for the film director and two of his contributions. His other film, Dear Gaia (2019 film) is also nominated for deletion, for the same reasons as this one. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas at Cartwright's

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

Non-notable television film, does not meet

WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage by independent sources BOVINEBOY2008 22:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are on a campaign to delete Hallmark movies, which is a shame. This movie has; External links Christmas at Cartwright's at IMDb Christmas at Cartwright's at AllMovie Christmas at Cartwright's at the TCM Movie Database Official website

Well documented with external sources. Stop this vengeance against Hallmark. keep the movie.Savolya (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, most Hallmark movies rarely get coverage beyond a brief mention in passing of TV lineups. I absolutely adore Hallmark movies, but the sheer volume with which they're created and released makes it fairly impossible for all of them to get enough coverage to justify inclusion. I'd say that about 2-10% of them actually gain the needed coverage. There's just too many of them for outlets to really cover, as covering them would take away time and space needed to cover other films and people. It's kind of the nature of the beast with film coverage as a whole, but particularly when it comes to anything that isn't a top tier mainstream film like say, anything in the MCU or by Nicholas Sparks. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Reader. I have no issue with Hallmark movies, or tv movies in general. However, beyond the basic credits/stats and a plot summary, there is no encyclopedic information from most of these articles. Wikipedia is not just a database of every topic that has ever existed. Each article needs to meet a
notability threshold, usually indicated by coverage from significant independent coverage. I would also argue that being included on a list of "Films to rewatch" or "Most popular movies" does not constitute significant coverage, especially such lists criteria are unclear and inclusion is again just a short synopsis. BOVINEBOY2008 10:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Review at Dove.org and several sites listing it as a top Hallmark film (including Parade Magazine). Donaldd23 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Dove and CinemaBlend, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable and the sources are reliable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Criteria 1: Withdrawn by nominator and no deletion support.

(non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The Craigslist Killer (film)

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources per

WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 22:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found sources and greatly expanded the article to where it should pass notability guidelines for films or TV programs. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness though, these took a while to locate due to the sheer amount of false positive, unusable sources, and general coverage for the suspected killer. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per newly added citations.
WP:HEY Donaldd23 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination including a reception section detailing reviews from reliable sources such as The New York Times and The Repositry together with other coverage so that
WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdraw Thanks to ReaderofthePack for finding all of the good sourcing. BOVINEBOY2008 10:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean School

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

Following policy (

BEFORE search yields only trivial coverage, and there is thus no sign of notability. Therefore, the article should be redirected to the article noted above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Mercy11 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is reminded that initiating an RfD is the only WP-approved process for deleting an article. No single editor gets to decide --unilaterally--, as the nominator did here, that an article can deleted. We, instead, follow policy and file an AfD request, as the nominator has now done (thank you), to allow for the matter to be discussed by the community at large, consensus to be reached, and for an uninvolved admin makes the keep/delete decision. Incidentally, invoking WP essays, like the essay
WP:PG are followed instead. Thank you.Mercy11 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Have you read the policy I cited above,
WP:ATD-R? It quite clearly permits what I did, while allowing for the matter to be taken here only if someone disagrees. In future, I'll cite WP:ATD-R in the edit summary, but in any event I did comply with relevant policies and guidelines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

To prove a school is non- notable takes considerable work. I would have expected the nominator have done a simple google, and found www.cambridge-strategies.org I would then have expected them to discuss each paragraph aqainst our policies. When concensus was reached, then a redirection may be the correct action, but we need to discuss WP:UNDUE. Making an ex cathedra decision wastes a lot of other peoples time.ClemRutter (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school handbook, (primary source should be an External link) And I would like to see a es.google as well. ClemRutter (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the school website nor its handbook can possibly speak to notability in any way, per
WP:INDY. And bold redirection is not prohibited by any policy; it is endorded by ATD; no consensus is needed to do it, and the editor in question did exactly the right thing when they encountered resistance. They came here. 174.212.222.24 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete we need multiple cases of in depth coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to show a subject is notable. Currently we only have the subject's own webpage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notability must be proved, not disproved. Wikipedia is built on verrifiability, which means we need secondary sources that cover the matter. We do not do original research in Wikipedia which is what we have when our sourcing on a subject is only material created by the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since I could not find the multiple in-depth reliable independent sources it needs to pass either
WP:THREE that are though. Just as it is I couldn't find any myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Two sentences long, no sources, and only one external link. No proof of notability. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, and as the name is fairly generic, I think a redirect would do as much to confuse as to clarify. 174.254.192.112 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not soft-delete due to BLP request. Daniel (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hannah

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

Subject of article has requested deletion here and on the Talk page and I think

WP:BIODEL may apply. Article has been tagged for notability since 2010 and sourcing is poor. Speedy deletion was requested and declined in 2020. Tacyarg (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edgend

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

Fails WP:BAND. 777burger ^{user talk} ^contribs 22:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 777burger ^{user talk} ^contribs 22:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. All I found when I searched with their sole album were the usual databases, youtube videos, streaming links, blogs, retail and download sites. I have found some album reviews but they are featured on said blogs. No evidence of notability. The vast majority of the article creator's edits revolved around the article of the band, so I suspect there's COI involved as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhyamantri (2009 film)

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

Fails

WP:BEFORE. 9 votes on IMDB. One review [[1]], that does not pass GNG for many criteria. Kolma8 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bob Sinister

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

Unreferenced BLP with no reliable sigcov that I can find. AviationFreak💬 21:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly Redirect to Corrosion of Conformity. Most of this guy's career is local, and his longtime band Ugly Americans got some local media coverage (e.g. [2]), but that would be more useful for an article about them if they were notable. He was with the notable Corrosion of Conformity but only for about two years, and during that time he generated no reliable coverage that was specifically about himself outside the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure why this is a page for only the lead singer and not the entire band since the article is largely about Ugly Americans. Either way, though, no sources are provided and a google search turns up mentions in databases but no significant coverage beyond the minor one cited above. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apriorics

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

Almost entirely

WP:BEFORE that any other author has contributed to the body of research on this theory. It appears to be one of many alternatives to quantum mechanics but nowhere is there evidence that there is any significant engagement with this idea in the literature. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the coverage of the theory appears to be in-universe, no evidence of notability from independent sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no external coverage at all. --mfb (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not sufficient coverage of sources. Rondolinda (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one actually spills over into "Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up one day" territory, I think.
talk) 02:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- nothing independent in the refs and searches reveal nothing better. Primary research and overwhelming COI. Fails
WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Answer As I understand it, the term "original research" in Wikipedia context refers to research that is published originally in Wikipedia. This is not the case for Apriorics. The research has been presented at a scientific conference and published in several distinguished scientific journals. In addition, it has been published as a book by a respectable publishing house. Publishing in all these places requires approval by leading scientists. The very fact that the research was published by these journals proves that it is in fact considered "notable" by those scientists. Motizin (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment I agree it's not exactly "original research" on Wikipedia, but something being published in a journal, or even as a book, does not inherently make it notable. It needs independant sources, such as being widely cites in other journals, or multiple book reviews, etc. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Publishing in all these places requires approval by leading scientists. This is a misconception. The process of publishing a paper, assuming it is in a place that even enforces

very clear standard for notability that requires "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". There is no evidence that there is independent development of this idea by other specialists or that there is attention paid to it by those specialists. It is notable by neither the wider definition nor by ours. I hope that helps explain the reasons why I nominated this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

- - Answer In fact, none of the references of this page are "peer reviewed". All are checked and approved by distinguished reviewers.Motizin (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VMRay

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

Multiple issues first noted in November 2015. Nothing's changed, still not meeting

WP:NCORP, and still a problem with sources. Dirge Jesse (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tagged this to query notability in 2015 and that remains the issue. More recently, the article creator has indicated (here) that they were employed by the company when the article was created. Leaving that
WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Cats

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

Book with no assertion of

notability. Author doesn't even have an article. Tagged since 2009. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've done some searches, and while I can find the book on sale plenty of places, I am finding no actual coverage in the form of reviews or other discussions on the book. Without coverage in reliable sources, it does not pass the
WP:NBOOK, and as the author does not have an article themselves, there is no appropriate place I can think of to Redirect to. Rorshacma (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This seems to have released with little to no fanfare as far as I can tell. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet
useable reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Le Dilemme d'Eya

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

I don't believe this short film meets

WP:NFILM. The first is a press release by UNESCO about a film it produced, so it is not independent coverage. The second is a trivial mention. Simply winning awards does not grant notability - notability comes in the form of coverage, which so far has not been demonstrated. Happy to withdraw early if coverage is located, but so far the best that's been found isn't very much. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough to to meet
WP:NFILM. The awards don't seem to be "major" IMO. So, it is hard to justify the notability based on the awards and teh coverage is missing. Kolma8 (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Idris

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

BLP article where the subject does not meet

WP:NBIO- notability is inherited from the Daily Trust newspapers. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My sense is that this fellow's work and activities and extra curricular activity meets
WP:AUD
notability for a national audience, i.e., his country.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much to add. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the article is supported by sources showing that Hamza has a significant body of work, has received non-trivial coverage (e.g. [3] (featuring him personally - not merely the paper he works for - for his sustained reporting on Boko Haram), [4] (identifying him specifically as the target of a military raid)), and in general is not known merely by association with the Daily Trust (contrary to what you would find at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adumbrativus (talk • contribs) 06:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet notability guidelines to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tris Margetts

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

No evidence of significant coverage from reliable sources from the references or a BEFORE search, fails

WP:GNG

.

While the article is bombarded with 131 references, upon closer look many are either unreliable, primary sources or interviews, none of which establishes notability. When there are references to seemingly reputable sources, there is no significant coverage as the coverage is on someone else. SK2242 (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with nom, the refs are all about quantity. Moreover, the article is meant to be about a person, but ends up being mostly about a band — entire sections like discography, gig dates (?!), etc. should be deleted, esp. as they replicate content from the band's article (or v.v.). I'd say this calls for
WP:TNT. If a new article is to be created (and I'm not saying it should), it should be trimmed down to content that a) is purely about the person, and b) can be supported by RS refs. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I extracted a list of all domains in the references section. I intend to analyze which references qualify for RS based on this by identifying primary sources and similar unsuitable sources, or someone else can do it

badcatrecords.com
pearlsofrock.com
ukrockfestivals.com
vintageguitar.com
google.com
wordpress.com
wikimedia.org
eil.com
elparchive.com
gstatic.com
facebook.com
cleorecs.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
musicplayers.com
rarerecordcollector.net
rateyourmusic.com
recordcollectormag.com
udiscovermusic.com
nocookie.net
allmusic.com
bournemouthecho.co.uk
dmme.net
brainyquote.com
dgmlive.com
discogs.com
express.co.uk
goldminemag.com
hotpress.com
innerviews.org
musicradar.com
progarchives.com
purple.de
45worlds.com
setlist.fm
ladiesofthelake.com
blogspot.com
45cat.com
calyx-canterbury.fr
jefflynnesongs.com

Observaton upon closer inspection none of the sources appear to be RS. How is allmusic treated? — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both
WP:GNG. Despite some spectacular refbombing, every reference from a reliable source is about some other subject and not the article subject. No reliable source cited provides significant coverage of the article subject. The sources we do have demonstrate that this is a studio/touring musician who has worked with some notable acts but is not themselves notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete pet Eggishorn and after a further look into references (I can't even identify a RS). — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate significant biographical details in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (or if anyone is concerned about
WP:NMUSICIAN. Margetts has indeed had a long career behind the scenes and in conjunction with some famous people, but that does not mean he is notable in himself because his media coverage is actually about them. A little (repeat: A LITTLE) of his personal history can be recounted at the Spontaneous Combustion article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirecting can be done at editorial discretion. Daniel (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie College Conference (1988)

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

This article and

Prairie College Conference (1953–1967) were created in 2015 by User:Wmtribe2015 based on the now-defunct College Football Data Warehouse, which dealt with only football and suggested these were two different conference with this name. Research on Newspapers.com suggests there was one conference named "Prairie College Conference" that operated from 1953 to 1991 and sponsored an array of sports. Football was sponsored only from 1953 to 1967 and again in 1988. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. Good catch. I'd also be fine with a redirect to Prairie College Conference. Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no need to have separate article if it was the same conference. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 1 article suffices. Nigej (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need to duplicate.
SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete/Redirect to Prairie College Conference, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Prairie College Conference (1953–1967) should be deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The argument for a redirect would be as follows: Per

WP:RFD "If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect. Redirects are cheap." Here, "Prairie College Conference (1988)" is a variation that an editor might plausibly enter since it has received over 700 page views and is a term used in the College Football Data Warehouse. A redirect would avoid creation of a dead end. That said, the plausibility is in a gray area, and as I noted above, I am fine with "delete" or "redirect". Cbl62 (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Fajčík

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

Played 50 mins of professional football to scrape a

WP:GNG is met. Clear consensus that GNG takes priority in these cases. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively. Giant Snowman 21:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North & Mid-Herts Football League

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

I can't see any evidence that this short-lived, sub-county football league ever received enough dedicated, non-trivial coverage to meet our notability guidelines. The Comet had occasional brief round-ups, see here and here. I found one article in the St Albans Review. Its only mention in the BBC was just before its demise. I don't believe that this league is any more notable than the 20 or so sub-county leagues deleted last year for failing

WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low level, sub-county level, and purely local interest. Nigej (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

List of Net Yaroze games

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

There are a mountain of problems that riddle this list. To help fill in those unfamiliar with this hardware, the Net Yaroze was a limited circulation model of the PlayStation designed specifically for creating homebrew software, specifically video games.

The list is a big fat serving of

WP:NOTCATALOG

. None of the games produced for this system were ever commercially released, they were distributed for free via the internet or promotional CDs included in gaming magazines. No Net Yaroze games are notable on their own outside those that are simply ports of pre-existing games. It's simply useless for readers that are interested in navigating through pages, because there ARE no pages.

The sources are abysmal. Most of them come off as ref stuffing and feel like duplicates of each other. The sourcing used in the actual list does not discuss Net Yaroze games as a group, and range from random website catalogs to fansites we would never consider reliable. A list with 80 sources and none of them actually provide any significant/in-depth/independent commentary on any of these is a serious problem.

WP:LISTN states that sources for lists must be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." None of the sources here have that, and as such, it should be deleted. Namcokid 47 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Namcokid 47 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Namcokid 47 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The thing is, some of these games were released on PlayStation Underground, Official UK PlayStation Magazine and Hyper PlayStation Re-mix demo discs to name a few so in a way, they were technically released. Some of the netyaroze-europe.com urls are from the old severs Sony used to host, since Net Yaroze users could host their own sites via their serves and even share their games on forums. Even if it gets deleted, at least it was fun to make this list, as many people had their video game careers kickstarted by the Yaroze. If anybody really feels enticed to rework the Net Yaroze page, i left a plethora of sources to expand that article... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of this actually explains why you want the list to be kept. Namcokid 47 20:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only four have links to articles. Some of these games only seemed to have been released in Japan. Did they get coverage in any Japanese media? Dream Focus 00:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can actually explain that: I wanted to try something different, given that one of the editors in the WP:VG told me not to link old magazines a long time ago. I can try to provide links at least to the magazines that covered the games here. BTW, Dream Focus; Yes, Net Yaroze did get coverage in Japanese magazines, some even hosting events and awards for Yaroze titles such as Dengeki PlayStation and Hyper PlayStation Re-mix but since most of the issues remain unavailable to read online and finding Japanese info about the Yaroze is even harder than finding western magazines that did covered it, I preferred not bothering with it except the few that I did unearthed. Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding the rationale(s) for deletion here.
WP:LISTN states "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." I don't think there's a debate that Net Yaroze (which includes the games themselves) meets GNG. So, in short, (1) I don't understand the application of NOTCATALOG here, (2) I disagree with the comments about the sources (or at least the lion's share), and (3) I feel like this AFD is contrary to some of what is stated in LISTN. But, that's just my two cents. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
- I don't understand your second point in particular: "Each of the list entries here has a source, the vast majority of which appear to be from sources that the community considers reliable (e.g., PlayStation Official Magazine – UK, Edge, Giant Bomb)." Ignoring the sources that clutter the lead, you have 24C Resource (database site), Nick F's Yaroze Homepage! (fansite), Yaroze Scene (another fansite), Net Yaroze (ネットやろうぜ) (primary source?), and PSXDEV Network (fansite). Most of the reliable sources used are just talking about the console itself and not the individual games, and the Giant Bomb source is unreliable because it comes from their database (which is user-generated) and not articles from staff. When most of the sources are unreliable or don't offer any coverage on this topic, then why even have a list like this at all? Namcokid47 17:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The links i've placed on some of the sources now do discuss most of the games and demos themselves. 24C, Nick F's and Net Yaroze (ネットやろうぜ) use the netyaroze-europe.com url from the old severs Sony used to host the Net Yaroze forums with. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That does not make them any more reliable. Actually that would just make them primary sources,
      which do not establish notability. Namcokid 47 17:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  - Perhaps I'm not understanding, but for many (perhaps even most?) of the entries in the list, there is a citation to "Official UK PlayStation Magazine" or a similar reliable source. I wasn't referring to the ones cited in the introductory paragraphs. I don't agree with your assertion that "Most of the reliable sources used are just talking about the console itself and not the individual games." I checked several and they each referenced individual games. So I still don't see the case for deletion here and I think we'd be better served by continuing to improve the article, per
    WP:ATD. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep Looking through the references that are valid, these sorts of games do get coverage. Those that don't should still be on the list to make it complete. Dream Focus 17:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe the best organised list article I've seen in all my years on wikipedia. Several of the sources cover these games as a group, making it a valid topic. They tend to be a little weak but you don't need top tier RS for this sort of topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Daniel Ivankovich

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

Puffed article and promotional tune. Fails GNG Tbyros (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tbyros (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:GNG. It might have a promotional tone but deletion is not cleanup. Alvaldi (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep While the article is overdone with puffery, as noted by the nom, that does not negate the wide and significant coverage from multiple reliable sources about the subject's career and humanitarian work. The subject was named a CNN Hero for his nonprofit medical work and he has received other multiple awards, including from the Red Cross and being named 2010's Chicagoan of the Year. Meets
WP:BASIC, although the article does need cleaning up. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The user Tbyros is known for trying to shake down users for $$ to eliminate the delete nomination - it is a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:588:C100:6260:15B2:AB12:25D4:2D17 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs some
WP:BASIC. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Ruppert

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

non-notable dj, all the sources are paid for and there's nothing better in a search. Ranking anywhere on Beatport doesn't contribute to

Readers Digest CUPIDICAE💕 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources appear to be PR/churnalism. Beatport rankings are not enough to meet WP:NMUSIC.-
KH-1 (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not even close to being a notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Automatic red flag for me if Vents is used as a reference; it's the ultimate in churnalism. (The other sources do not establish notability - she doesn't meet GNG.) JSFarman (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Pillai

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

This person has played only acted in a single movie and is not notable enough. No enough references to prove his notablity. Fails notability (

WP:NOT) CRICKETMANAIC303 CRICKETMANIAC303 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One notable role and its associated press probably does not meet our standards. Jupitus Smart 02:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independent and reliable references. Niceguylucky (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails
WP:NACTOR there are no significant roles in movies Padavalam🌂 ► 16:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No evidence of notability.Fatzaof (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Unnikrishnan

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

This person is not notable enough. No enough references to prove his notablity. Fails notability (

WP:NOT). You can edit and improve the article or merge or redirect it.CRICKETMANAIC303 CRICKETMANIAC303 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack reliable independent references. fails GNG. Niceguylucky (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough credited roles in movies Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 11:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Khoshbin

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

Sources given do only mention Athletes/National name, was not able to locate his name in the sources. The external links were Google translated, also no mentioning of him.

talk) 16:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no comment on notability but this is probable COI. The same creator also created Mohammad Kazemzadeh, which is almost definitely an autobiography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have to start enforcing rules against conflict of interest article creations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing that shows significant coverage of him. Many of the references given don't even mention his name. They refer to results from various competitions where, I assume, he was the coach. Most of the other references amount to his name being in membership lists. His BJJ medals were from a tournament where his gold came from being the only entrant in his division and where no victories were needed to secure his bronze. In addition, those medals came in Master 1 divisions, which are for older competitors. Most of the tournament's divisions didn't even have enough competitors to award a full set of medals--that's hardly a major tournament. There is no supporting evidence of his medal in the kurash championships, only a link to an article that lists the Iranian team members. I could find nothing on the tournament except for a list of champions at the International Kurash Association website, not even coverage of how many competitors were there nor full results. It may well be he won a silver medal, but it's not clear that is sufficient to show notability, especially when there is not a single article that shows significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree completely with Papaursa's assessment of the sources available. This does not meet our threshold for notability in terms of significant coverage from independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Shukla VK

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

Completely promotional, essentially a resumé of the person, only sources cited is the person's social media.

T C L) 15:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible speedy A7): An article moved to draft but then returned to mainspace by the
WP:ENTERTAINER. AllyD (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per fails WP:Notability and other applicable notability criteria. Also, WP:Autobiography according to Talk:Abhishek Shukla VK (permalink), which means the author has a WP:Conflict of interest and should not have moved it out of draft: space in the first place. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG for a BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable references. Notability is in question. Niceguylucky (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to pass our notability criteria. Referencing is also very poor, a symptom of lack of notability Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails to pass
WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 16:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Babar (Pashtun tribe)

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

The article contains original research and citations have not been added since 2012. The article is being used as a Genealogical diary defcon5 (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, no citations. Should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for sources on this for a few minutes but couldn't find any scholarly ones. Leaning towards delete. Mar4d have you read about this tribe anywhere?VR _talk 01:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Extensionalism "X"

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

Fails

general notability guideline. Only one reliable source (HuffPost). This could be merged into Jack Armstrong (artist), who appears to be the only exponent of this art style. A Google search did not find any mainstream sources, and all the sources found that relate to Armstrong. The article has no incoming links or articles in other Wikipedia languages. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article history:

Draft submission declined by Heliosxeros [5]
Moved to article space by
Kiboozle, without significant changes[6]

Replaced with a redirect by Onel5969 [7]
Article reinstated by Kiboozle[8]

The related article Cosmic Starship was recently PRODded by Bri and deleted by Liz. See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Starcruiser. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I let this one slip through the cracks back in 2018. Should have nominated it after the redirect was reverted. Searches under either "Cosmic Extensionalism" or "Cosmic X" turned up zero in-depth sourcing. Only things were mentions in connection with the artist. I would say redirect, but the current title is not a plausible search term, as it is never refered to as Cosmic Extensionalism "X". Those other two terms could be valid redirects. I also don't think merge is a viable option in this case, as all the pertinent cited info is already included in the artist's article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A phrase coined and used exclusively by a single artist. There is no coverage of the term outside of mentions in articles on that artist, so it does not have the sources to pass the
WP:GNG as a standalone article. And, as pointed out by onel5969, it would not be the appropriate term to use as a Redirect to the artist's page. I have no objections to Redirects with the correct titles being created, though. Rorshacma (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 13:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Case study in psychology

)

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

A

talk) 14:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep I fail to see the justification for this nomination as it provides no reason to delete. The topic is highly notable as numerous books have been written about it – a selection follows. Particular cases in the field are quite famous and we have articles about them which this page lists. For example, there's
broad topic which has to address numerous other fields of study such as business, social science and so on. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

There's no substantive difference between the kinds of case studies that are done in psychology versus the other social sciences, even if each field may produce "how to" books that are specifically honed to students in their own disciplines (note that the best work is however done by general methods books or general case study books). None of the books you cited are cited on the "Case study in psychology" article. The books that are cited are the very same general case study publications as are cited in the main article. The "Case study in psychology" article has barely any content. Of the content that's included, there are unsourced falsehoods (e.g. case studies can't prove causation). One reason why having a trillion forks is unwise is precisely because it leads to a duplication of content, as well as a dispersal of effort across many articles, which leads to errors and sloppy content. Wouldn't it be wiser to elaborate on whatever case study cultures exist in different fields on the main page, and then fork those sections when they grow too large and detailed?

talk) 19:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The Encyclopedia of Case Study Research demonstrates that there's a huge amount of ground to cover as it runs to more than one volume, covering numerous particular fields as separate encyclopedic topics. If we try to cover diverse topics like medicine and feminism under one heading, we are likely to get muddle and improper synthesis. It is better to stick to particular fields and build up, rather than down. And, as someone has made a start on this particular field and it is so clearly notable, we should stick with what we have. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that the different titles represent different kinds of reports, or merely a convenient way of organizing them according to the nature of the subject. (If there were volumes Case studies 1920-1950 and Case studies 1951-1980 we certainly wouldn't have a separate article for each one.) I'm not saying I'm sure, just that our default should to a single common page from which specialized pages can be spun off when the evidence supports it. See my post just below here. E Eng 20:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking merge to
WP:NOPAGE). I'd take that as the default unless a highly authoritative source says, "Case studies in psychology differ from those in medicine in the following important ways ..." and those differences are so large that they can't be incorporated into a common page.
In response to a mention above, I am the subject of several case studies in the areas of medicine, abnormal psychology, criminology, and social decay, but national security regulations require that they remain sealed until the year 2080. E Eng 20:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or, in the alternative, merge to Case report. I'm not seeing why a split is necessary here, when this could easily become a section of the wider article. Neutrality^talk 22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Case studies in psychology are distinct from medical case reports, just based on the descriptions in each article, and the case report article mentions how they are typically not case studies, so a merger does not seem logical from a navigational standpoint. Also, the
WP:TNT of the case study article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Reading both articles there is clear difference. I just added another famous case study to the list in this article. Reliable sources do cover "case studies in psychology" such as https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/denial-science-chris-mooney/ Dream Focus 05:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As prior discussed, this is a reasonable split from Case study. Psychology produces a particular amount of case studies, distinct from medical ones, and Case study itself has some synthesis issues already. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this doesn't seem to be a request for deletion, just a request to merge. I don't see a merge improving either
π, ν) 18:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Reluctant keep Current article content is, frankly, annoying - a lede full of commonplaces that apply to all case studies in whatever discipline, and two one-sentence sections that are even more so. This stuff would not be worth an article. The saving grace is the list of notable psychology case studies, which although a subjective selection, is probably a useful reference tool. Might be better off renamed to "Notable psychology case studies", but it kinda works under the current title, so might as well stick with it. Definitely needs more text that could not have come off a cereal package though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Awful Spook

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

While the series is clearly notable, this particular short does not pass

WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep::There's a rule in WP:NFILM's "Other evidence of notability" section saying "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." Because The Awful Spook was release in a short film collection on DVD many decades later, that's probably rereleasing. By making that criterion it should have some notability. FoxLad (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being made in 1921, it would have been released in theaters as the home video market didn't yet exist. The article could use more references though. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; If the film isn't considered notable, this should revert to the redirect it used to be (Krazy Kat filmography#Bray_Productions), not be deleted. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film was re-released several times over the years (which satisfies the NFILM section that FoxLad pointed out above) and has also been discussed in books (including the one cited in the article) Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FoxLad and Donaldd23. The age of this short is an important consideration, as many works from the era are lost (albeit to my understanding less so in animation than live action); a hundred-year-old film being preserved and re-released is a strong indication of its notability. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Velagada

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

While I don't doubt that Velagada is indeed a surname, I can find no evidence that it is a notable topic for an article. The article's content is completely unsourced and partly incomprehensible. There are no notable people with the surname. Lennart97 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Gerard Ungerman

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

Non-notable. Fails GNG and none of his works have Wikipedia articles.–Cupper52^Discuss! 13:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 13:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 13:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. FDW777 (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify.

(non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Wildlife (video game company)

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

Advertisement of a company. lack of independent reliable references. Jack-in-USA (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jack-in-USA (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack-in-USA (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jack-in-USA (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I have an issue if this is
WP:PROMO or not. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Could you please provide examples on an independent source and depend on the source in this article page that is not suitable? Seeing other article pages related to the same topic; I don't see an issue. However, if you provide the examples I'll adjust them and replace the reference. Law of Royale (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that this AFD was started by a now-blocked sock of some previous troublemaker. I won't remove this AFD, because another editor has said "weak delete", but (a) future commenters should say something besides "per nom" or similar, because nominator's opinion is going to be discounted by closing admin, and (b) @Cupper52:, do you want to review your comment to make sure you agree? Not saying you're wrong, but it's worth a second look on your part. If you withdraw your weak delete, I'll speedy close. if not, I'll leave it open. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify; there is some routine coverage that could amount to significant coverage in total, but the article is poorly written and heavily uses primary sources that should be eradicated. IceWelder [✉] 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- »heavily uses primary sources that should be eradicated« should be better now.Law of Royale (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:DCOI). I still advocate for draftspace incubation as this allows for a thorough content review outside the AfD process. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 08:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Thank you 🙇 I'll see how I can exchange these. My main thought was to reference the publication date w/o linking to the app store or play store—at least these that refer purely for the verification of the dates. I'm myself active in various gaming communities, as a veteran community member (meaning I play their games, use their community channels, contribute to their community channels in various ways) such as Tencent (including Supercell) and Wildlife, however, I'm not affiliated with either, whenever with a contract or with an agreement nor do these companies requested/know/discussed with them, I just thought it would be a good time to create information that's accessible for everyone without a long-time investment. Law of Royale (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify seeing as how there's an editor working on it. The applicable guideline is
HighKing⁺⁺ 22:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
- I see, I'll try to reduce the said reference aspects and remove the reference for the products, efficient time investment help ^^. About the independent reference part; I'll try to seek and comment here if I'm able to provide (or not) it before the decision. But since I have googled and duckduckgoed for three hours already (as a whole for the 'invalid' independent references), I'm afraid I have to agree to you, however, we will see. Law of Royale (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, there are no such researches or analysis. I saw a webpage listing some legal information regards one of their subsidiaries and another page about legal information about Wildlife despite being both in Portuguese that I don't speak, I wouldn't have an understanding of how to reuse the 'case' listings here since I don't have a clue how relevant it is due to the information not being available in English. Law of Royale (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Britney Spears discography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!...I Did It Again (Remixes and B-Sides)

)

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

Not notable per

WP:NALBUMS. The rules are clear - charting alone doesn't make a release notable. Per a search of Google News the only mentions are of the existence/release of the record. There is nothing noteworthy about this release. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Initially looking at this, I thought it was going to be an easy keep based on how prolific Britney Spears is. Turns out, there's basically no coverage in RS. There's a Forbes piece here from a contributor, but per
BEFORE I couldn't find anything other than listings (A Rolling Stone list here, a one-sentence mention here, and a few others.) Basically, no in-depth coverage at all despite the fame of Ms. Spears. --Kbabej (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — Echoing Kbabej's rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britney Spears discography -- I thought it was a keep given Britney Spears's name, but as nom said, charting alone does not make notability. I would say redirect is a better option to outright deletion. HĐ (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britney Spears discography per nom. Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. --Ashley yoursmile! 12:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britney Spears discography per nom. D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 22:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Isabelle of Isenburg

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

I can find no evidence of

WP:GNG notability (it's almost an A7). The article says that her father is the heir of the last ruler of a tiny state abolished 200 years ago, and her late husband also was the heir of the last rules of another tiny state abolished 200 years ago. The only content specific to the person (and not her relation to others) seems to be her date of birth, not quite enough for a BLP I think. —Kusma (t·c) 11:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 11:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 11:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability and a clear case of
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Lennart97 (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom (lack of notability). — -1

Delete Whatever her career is, it's not notable and not stated in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak case of notability. Mukt (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited, and there's no evidence that she's notable in her own right. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is relevant, together with her husband, was representative of an active mediatized family from Germany. Cronista de Historias (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per ab0ve.--
talk) 08:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete . Her claim to fame is that she is the younger daughter of two people neither of whom have an article and the wife of a man who doesn't have an article. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No GNG claim. Kolma8 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DrKay. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VocalIndia (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Some early delete votes are based on issues that were later fixed. The remaining issue is notability. For notability, there is a weak consensus to keep. Considering the discussion has been relisted twice, has gone on for 27 days, and some people have been notified explicitly, closing it as keep.

(non-admin closure) ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach

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

Page on a new research institute created by an SPA that has disclosed on

Phil Bridger: who removed my improperly-applied speedy tag. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

strike TNT per improvements by RationalPuff, see my comments below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Has too many issues to qualify as a Wikipedia article. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that someone with such a clear COI should not be allowed to bypass the
WP:AfC process Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No sources, no categories, no evidence of notability, created by a COI editor, copyvio... This is not a Wp article.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It seems that this is a clear copyright violation, so is eligible for speedy deletion under a different criterion from the one I contested. If this is found not to be a copyright violation then my recommenation is delete as non-notable.
Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article is very problematic.
WP:TNT applies per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge if not keep with ~~Department of Science and Technology (India).~~ Strong Keep This is a legitimate Govt. of India organisation. I feel the article is rather a stub which needs improving. Here's some link from quick search.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] RationalPuff (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "NECTAR is an autonomous society".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ Singh, Bikash. "Cabinet clears setting up of North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach at Shillong". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2021-01-26.
^ "Saffron flowers debut on Sikkim soil as varsity project". www.telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 2021-01-26.
^ "North East Centre for Technology Application and Research (Nectar) Implementing Several Projects Sucessfully". Punekar News. 2016-03-10. Retrieved 2021-01-26.
^ "Saffron bowl of India extends to northeast". News Station. 2020-11-09. Retrieved 2021-01-26.
^ "Growing Saffron in Sikkim: How Jammu & Kashmir is helping". The Financial Express. 2020-11-11. Retrieved 2021-01-26.
^ Hazarika, Myithili (2020-11-11). "72-year-old Meghalaya woman revives Garo fashion with recycled material". ThePrint. Retrieved 2021-01-26.

comment Changed my vote as I improved the stub somewhat but I'm sure it cam be improved further. I urge all editors to reconsider their opinion and possibly also can help improving the stub further. Thanks. RationalPuff (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirect to

WP:SIGCOV. I remain concerned about copyright: the license [10] does not appear to be compatible with Wikipedia licensing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think that the statement, "this is subject to the material ... not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context", is compatible. But if enough has now been changed then the copyright issue is a matter for revision deletion, rather than deletion of the whole article. Of course we are still left with deciding notability.

Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

~~The text copied into the article by the COI editor is still there, although an interested editor could certainly rewrite it.~~ ~~Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)~~ Now fixed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

potential copyright issue has been eliminated. I have no doubt about the nobility of the subject. There are 1000s of search results about the subject of which several are reliable and significant coverage. However, as I said before it needs volunteers to improve upon the content. It will be a loss to the project trying to delete or even redirecting. RationalPuff (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to change the delete vote implicit in my nomination to redirect per
Phil Bridger, I guess you've already seen. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

@Russ Woodroofe: I have struck out my vote. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing the
WP:GNG. I did consider merging but no great candidate. The ministry is too high up. Independent, not affiliated to a university. gidonb (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes the
WP:GNG with the sources provided, moreover we are discussing a regional organisation (higher than state level) servicing a population of 45+ million people.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1988–89

)

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

Fails

WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are articles on touring sides for each cricket season. I don't have access to news archives but there would almost certainly be coverage of Pakistan's tour of Australia at that time in national newspapers (there always is), so the claim of non-notability is simply not true. Another option which would be a valid
alternative to deletion would be a merge or redirect to 1988–1989 Australian cricket season but that article currently doesn't exist. So as not to undo the good work of cricket editors here I see why this article can't be kept pending that being created. Again, another instance where deletion is a lazy option. Deus et lex (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. At the risk of being repetitive, I'll say what I said on other similar nominations. We have a complete series of articles on the official cricket tours, and because there is a complete series, readers (remember them?) can find their way around easily. What is the encyclopedic merit in seeking to destroy that? Johnlp (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1988–89 Australian Tri-Series which is where the significant matches took place. Surely this can't be considered a traditional tour in any sense of the word? If this involves a series of bi-lateral international matches then fair enough, but as it is we have a short article and one about the tournament. Combining them is far more logical an approach to take. We can have one decent article then. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 1988–89 Australian Tri-Series. Matches on this trip were organised around this series. Does not meet criteria for a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the
Pakistani cricket team in New Zealand in 1988-89 article as another redirect option. HawkAussie (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1988–89 Australian Tri-Series since that is the most natural, consistent and obvious outcome; we don't have Afghanistan cricket team in England in 2019 and Sri Lanka cricket team in England in 2019, we have 2019 Cricket World Cup. While not quite the same scale, the comparison can be made, since these would all refer to one single event, consisting of multiple matches which are not solely between the two teams mentioned in the title... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Watson (Missouri)

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

Non notable government official. No single source cited Jenyire2 06:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 06:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify We have a whole series of articles about state auditors of Missouri so it seems that holders of this position have generally been accepted as notable. This particular individual may not be, and it's the article creator's job to provide the sources that would clearly show that they are. Mccapra (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Striking my !vote as sources have been added. Mccapra (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unsourced biography of a living person. Also, interim holders of offices that permanent holders of are notable are not neccessarily notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or draftify, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better. While state auditor is a role that should pass
WP:NPOL in principle, passing NPOL is not an exemption from actually having to have any sources at all — and acting temporary holders of a political office are also not extended the same presumption of notability as long-term, properly appointed or elected holders of that office, if their sourcing isn't on point. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment i began to expand the article with sources from major newspapers. I agree there should be no rush to delete an article when others in the same profession have articles. Give it a reasonable amount of time for editors to improve it. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and John Pack Lambert... — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete as I simply see no way this guy is notable: certainly the article makes no such claim. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to State Auditor of Missouri as an ATD, doesn't seem independently notable Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Control Ltd

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

Does not assert notability. Material online is self-published, passing mentions, or marketing stuff regarding fundraising. As far as I can see, it's a wholly unremarkable landscaping company. Matt Deres (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Matt Deres (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Matt Deres (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note it should not directly affect the outcome, but the user who created this article was pretty clearly their Communications Manager at the time, and was therefore operating with a COI and edited for pay without disclosure. Matt Deres (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, they're all "echo chamber" references, relying entirely on information provided by the company or affiliated sources. Fails
HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Axa General Insurance

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

I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Existing references are based on press releases and announcements, failing

HighKing⁺⁺ 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NCORP. Extremely shallow coverage ("AXA increases stake..."). — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; optionally merge anything worth saving to
talk) 16:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maschinen Krieger ZbV 3000

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

Very niche fictional universe. One of the external links is described as 'Fan-compiled story background & timeline' and this is what this article really is.

WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar (although the 2017 movie adaptation announcement did generate a bit of coverage, but what may be notable in this mess is the upcoming movie, but a) that's not the focus of this article and b) the movie is likely not notable yet anyway (coverage: [11], [12]). I did find one source from 2012 that mentions this universe in context of Hawken (video game) but it's rather short and hard to justify keeping the current article based on the coverage here: [13] (it does open a possibility of a soft deletion and redirecting this mess to that video game article, perhaps - but right now that article doesn't even mention this topic, so...). Still, maybe someone fluent in Japanese can find something I missed? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is, as they say, big in Japan. The Japanese article contains much additional material and it seems easy to find coverage in English too, such as this exhibition. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, I am not sure how 'big' this is. The Japanese article is not much longer than ours and the sources, including the sole English one you found, are pretty niche and of borderline reliability. It's a good start, however, and since you say it is "easy to find coverage in English", please don't hesitate to share the rest of what you've found. TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided adequate evidence to support my position. Let's just add the most relevant policy here:
WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is not about a fictional universe, as claimed by the nominator, but rather the intellectual property itself. It has been referenced in a wholly unrelated video game (Hawken), with a movie adaptation on the way, both of which can be cited to verifiable sources. A quick search on Kotaku yields two results. This nomination is essentially a
to prove a point. Haleth (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. On second look, there's no opposition to deletion, so ... Sandstein 08:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Quintero

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

Fails

WP:BIO. Tagged for lack of references since 2011 and for notability since 2010. Subject requests deletion. OTRS Ticket 2021012710012109. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Grammy nomination would seem important, not sure if it's for her specifically or just the album as a whole. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree that the Grammy nomination would most likely make her notable, but his article needs references (as of now, has one and no inline references). ExRat (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I have found this article fully dedicated to her, this and this university mention. However, I couldn't find anything confirming the Grammy information. But in my opinion it's not enough to pass
WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Dehani

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

Doesn't have a single news link. DasSoumik (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references, no ghits. I can't say if this tribe exists or not. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon von Habsburg

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

I know this will be a controversial nomination, but this article is sourced entirely to three "noble genealogy" directories and a four-sentence blurb about him by the business he works for. It's not clear where he appears in the 2018 Almanach de Gotha (I haven't been able to find a single academic library network carrying the "modern" post-war AdG, or any of the other royalty books cited), but given the structure of the real AdGs of yore it is very likely he exists solely as a name in a pedigree. There is no in-depth independent coverage to suggest notability of this banker*; his only claim is being a Habsburg, which is why almost all of his page is about his and his wife's ancestors and the full names and birthdates of his children (two of them minors).

On the third page of Google I did find a notice in a Swiss newspaper that mentions he was to attend a concert in 2018 and gives a summary of his business. JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the claim "He is a member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and as such an Archduke of Austria, Prince of Hungary and Bohemia with the style His Imperial and Royal Highness" is a historical courtesy propagated by aristocratic societies and does not reflect official recognition by governments. In fact, use of titles and styles has been illegal in many countries since the end of WWI. Simeon would face legal consequences if he called himself an archduke in Austria. JoelleJay (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
is his work automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. He does get coverage from reliable sources for attending events, more than you would expect for someone this far from being the head of a deposed house. For example, entire stories, albeit short were written about Simeon's visits in the St. Galler Tagblatt [14], Badische Zeitung [15], and the Südkurier [16]. There's also short mentions of Simeon attending social events in Tatler [17] and Aargauer Zeitung [18], the latter of which describes him as a "church celebrity" and officially representing the Habsburgs for that event. At the very least, this is enough coverage so that he should be merged to his father's page at Archduke Rudolf of Austria (1919–2010), where the content on Simeon is less well-sourced than what's in his article.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for consideration of sources and opinion provided later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage provided in those sources is not remotely in-depth enough to count toward GNG. The Sudkurier article (which is identical to the BZ article) describes the Habsburg family's visit and gives a brief overview of the dynasty's relationship with Laufenburg; it has literally zero information on Simeon beyond his wife and two of his children's names. The AZ and Tatler articles have even less material, merely listing his name as one of the attendees to the respective events. Passing mentions are not sufficient for notability. There is in fact so little biographical content that I don't think there's anything that could be merged (although I did add the refs for his marriage). What's more, the Rudolf article is itself severely lacking in sourcing; I've gone through and removed great-great-grandchildren's names per BLPNAME and tossed out a wedding registry someone thought was appropriate as a BLP source. If someone wants to restore those with the specific pages in the 2018 Almanach that they appear in (not just citing all 45 pages in the "Austria" section) they can do so. JoelleJay (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Patar. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think he meets
WP:GNG and his roll is not significant. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
Bourbon-Two Sicilies (b. 1967) on 13 July 1996. They have five children. which just about covers it. In short, JoelleJay has it right. TompaDompa (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep per the sources found by User:Patar knight showing that he is notable.
WP:GNG is met. VocalIndia (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep per Patar knight's finds in German-language media. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VocalIndia, Willthacheerleader18 -- did you actually look at the German-language sources? Since there's so little, I'll paste all of what is said about Simeon in them here.

Descriptions of Simeon

The source I provided (Tagblatt) is by far the most in-depth about his background, but comprises a single paragraph with bare-bones info: The K&K Philharmonic have rented the Tonhalle in St.Gallen for the “Best of Mozart” concert. The guests will also include aristocrats: His Royal Highness Simeon of Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria, will travel to St. Gallen on April 25, accompanied by his wife and two of his children. The Archduke is a grandson of the last ruling imperial couple Karl and Zita. The almost 60-year-old married his wife, Princess Maria of Bourbon-Sicily, in 1996. The couple have five children. Simeon von Habsburg holds a degree in business administration from the University of Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. He began his professional career in 1983 with the private bank Brown Brothers Harriman & Cie. in New York. Two years later, he moved to the Paris branch of BBH & Cie. As Deputy Manager for institutional investments. Since 1991 he has been a partner, managing director and member of the board of directors of Principal Vermögensverwaltung AG in Vaduz. A third of this blurb isn't even
WP:INDEPENDENT as it is directly copied almost word-for-word from his IFM profile
: S.K.K.H. Simeon von Habsburg (1958) began his professional career in 1983 with Brown Brothers Harriman & Cie, private bankers, in New York. Two years later, he joined the Paris branch of BBH & Cie. as Deputy Manager for institutional investing. He has been a partner, managing director, and board member of Principal Vermögensverwaltung AG, Vaduz, since 1991..

The Südkurier (and BZ mirror) discusses his visit to Laufenburg, but doesn't talk about him whatsoever except in the intro: Almost unnoticed by the public, Simeon von Habsburg, Archduke of Austria, visited Laufenburg with his wife and two of his children on Saturday. Simeon von Habsburg was accompanied by his wife Maria of Bourbon-Sicily, Archduchess of Austria, his daughter Archduchess Carlota of Habsburg-Lothringen and his son Archduke Philip of Habsburg-Lothringen. The family arrived in Laufenburg around noon on Saturday. The only time he is described actively doing anything is here: The Archduke's family and the government council gladly accepted the invitation to the inauguration. The rest of the article goes over which locals were in attendance and the gifts they gave the family, and the historical relationship the Swiss town has with the Habsburg dynasty.

Tatler mentions he attended Maria Galitzine's wedding: Her own wedding in 2016 had an esteemed guest list, including Princess Maria Laura of Belgium, Princess Theresa of Liechtenstein, Archduke and Archduchess Simeon and María of Austria, and Count and Countess Riprand and Maria-Beatrice of Arco-Zinneberg.

AZ mentions him as one of the attendants of a church celebration: Archduke Simeon of Habsburg-Lothringen is also traveling from Vaduz. He represents the House of Habsburg, whose ancestors Idda and Radbot founded the Muri monastery in 1027. One interaction with Simeon is also brought up: [Röbi Lang] says he has exchanged a few words with Archduke Simeon several times. "He's a simple, sociable person.".

These sources are very clearly insufficient to establish notability. JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Possibly a hoax, if not definitely SYNTH, and created by a sockpuppet. Fences&Windows 02:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tengri Tribe

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

After

WP:GNG Moonjail (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also bundling

WP:GNG. Moonjail (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge with
WP:TNT may be more appropriate after all. Moonjail (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge
The Secret History of the Mongols, which is a factual article about that work. The other item linked from the nominated article seems to be redirected to a genealogy of Genghis Khan. I think there is scope for making one decent article out of this, setting out what can be deduced about this tribe from the Secret History. I have no doubt there will be literature commentating on that, which can be cited. Since Secret History is semi-mythical it is inevitable that the article will partly be about stuff that cannot be proved, but that is the nature of writing about remote history. This is potentially no worse than articles dealing with Indian, Mesopotamian or Greek texts giving semi-mythical history. We have articles on those, nut may discourage having too many on peripheral topics or people of whom we can known nothing but what is in that text. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or possibly merge with Tengri Tribe. I agree that expert attention is needed, but have to differ with the person saying the topic isn’t notable based on a Google search. There are in fact apparent hits on Google Scholar, as discussed on the talk page. The article should not be merged with the Secret History article, for the simple reason the the Secret History begins some six centuries after Tengrin. It also deals more with the discovery of the text than with its contents. The List of emperors of Tibet article questions the historicity of the first names on the list, but puts the father and brother of this khan in historic times. Admittedly the variations on the name are confusing; but come on we are talking about 620 AD. I don’t have any particular trouble with a god that is a mountain, or a khan who named himself after one or the other aspect. There are men named Jesus. A variation on the name apparently means blue sky and by extension Mongolia. Suppose it is merely an indicator of where he is from? A deep dive into related topics indicates that it is not unusual for tribes or clans to be named for their founder. I am somewhat skeptical about the professed genealogy of Ghengis Khan, but I haven’t looked into that yet. Note that I did not write this article, just came across it on a list of articles needing categories, and got interested. I realize that none of the above is an inline citation to a reliable source, but it does make me suspect that this khan does exist. Not that this is a requirement for notability in the first place; I am certain we have a number of articles about King Arthur. Elinruby (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point about historicity being of secondary importance is well taken, but I'm not sure the comparison to King Arthur is warranted or sufficient to address concerns about notability. If the subjects of these articles were as prominent in their corresponding mythology as King Arthur is in his own, I wouldn't have any concerns, but the fact is that we've only found a few passing mentions in the literature, and many of them place "Tengri Khan" in different times and locations such that they seem to be different figures altogether. It's one thing if these are genuine mytho-historical entities of some significance, and another thing entirely if they're artifacts of a flawed retroactive interpretation. I'd just like to be sure its the former. Moonjail (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a language barrier is part of this, based on experience in the more obscure corners of Wikipedia. I would have no issue with plain deleting if we had someone who actually knows the topic assuring us that someone made this up. As it is, we have articles devoted to individual episodes of Pinky and the Brain. Tibetan culture is being forcibly assimilated, and there is a paucity of English-language texts. I don’t think we should just delete. What we can do is edit in some phrases such as “it is said”, etc. There is some support for the existence of the brother, I noticed when I was trying to find the reference for the existence of the first emperor that someone asked for. The fact that even this undisputed event isn’t easy to reference is an argument against facile dismissal. Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that language barrier was probably something to do with it as well - as it stands I think I'm firmly in favor of a merger over deletion (see my comment above), and we're agreed that (a) some indication of dubious historicity is needed, as is (b) expert attention to confirm either way. Moonjail (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One last thought - while it might be fine in the short term, I think we should be really careful in taking approaches like "edit in some phrases such as 'it is said', etc." This sounds dangerously like advocating using

weasel words to account for a lack of evidence in either myth or fact, and would immediately invite ^{[by whom?]}. I'd prefer to wait for expert input before doing anything of the like. Moonjail (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I actually agree about

WP:Weasel; which is one of my personal pet peeves, as is the passive voice in general. I intended to suggest that we write in some indication/warning that the narrative’s sources are fuzzy. But you are right, weasel is the wrong way to go, and might reduce the incentive to find a better remedy. On second thought, let’s draftify instead. I have left a message on the author’s talk page offering my help; that is my best suggestion at the moment, that I work with the author to explain that sources that are in Kazakh or Tibetan or Chinese are acceptable but still need to be cited Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This is your

Greek pagans

fairytales and you sure that you read nothing you need just 1 Biological References right so see this Temujin Baghatur Genological DNA O-M175. #The Y lineage of Qasar (Genghis Khan’s full brother) has been identified as O-M175, which is common throughout East Asia and especially Han Chinese. This suggests that Genghis Khan himself may be O-M175. Tibetan people are genetically most closely related to Han Chinese, Bhutanese as well as Mongols. Tibetans predominantly belong to the paternal lineage O-M175. Another study by Yang et al. 2017 found that Tibetans are genetically closely related to other Sino-Tibetan populations. Read something your-slef Administrator see you as a Greedy--JUDDHO (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding the problem. These sources address the question of whether Genghis Khan is of Tibetan descent, but that's not at issue. It's whether this specific individual and this specific tribe actually existed, or are said to have existed, in the time and place you're claiming. I can't find mention of that in any of the sources you linked. Am I missing something? Please tell me if I am; it would resolve this whole thing very quickly. Moonjail (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:TNT is certainly better than sticking a citation needed tag on literally every sentence and keeping the article. I'll watch this discussion to see if anyone succeeds in finding sources, otherwise I will !vote to merge any cited material there is and delete the rest. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

TIL that

WP:TNT is a thing! I think you've just about summed up my thoughts on it - I'm willing to consider that there are sources we just haven't been able to find for whatever reason, but lacking those, I'm afraid that it might be best to bundle up whatever is verifiable and scrap the rest. Moonjail (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit: it doesn't look like extra sources will be forthcoming. !voting Merge. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Turkic editor ? you think the

Chgatai - Turkic and making the Khanate of Bukhara

and the article creating is not myth that you claim a myth we can so many myths create in like this is true but the articles is not true i am 100% sure this is deleted but this article you saw that was no harm or, against the other things accept sources and books Tengri Tribe all succssesors was creating but it's all reaserch finding sources from specialy books this article have no secondary or, third party sources this is clear sure it's not misunderstanding make you that article is true history which was not published by no one accept me and my sources which is original and talk about italy wiki it' almost same sources first investigation from there sources then i published you think very easy for me to rhumers publish wikipedia ? and blames on me about this i think you have a serious problem of sources about the tengri tribe how much expand the large size that was almost 20-30% size of Today Greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDDHO (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC) --JUDDHO (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I am agreeing that those topics are not the same thing and that information about one of them does not confer notability to the others, precisely because they are different things. I appreciate the link to a source, but that is just one source, and the focus of that source just further reinforces that merging this page with the page on the Secret History of the Mongols makes sense. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SYNTH. There may well be a notable topic under all this speculative material but it needs a fresh start. Mccapra (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as severe
WP:SYNTH. Nothing in the article or outside of the article suggests that "Tengri tribe/Khan" is a thing. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Don’t bite the newbies — I am striking my vote for keep or merge. I believe that it may be possible to source and otherwise improve this article, and in fact suspect some relationship with the second Turkic khanate, *however* apparently this will not be remedied by me. I have tried hard, and am not finding sources that I can read on either the web or Google scholar, and am unwilling to travel anywhere for rare book or academic database access. It is just too far from my own areas of expertise, and apparently requires language skills I do not have, not to mention the format limitations of my iPhone. However, I spend a lot of time on articles that look just like this (
WP:PNT) and have never seen a Turkish speaker; Wikipedia may in fact still be blocked in all of Turkey. Speakers of Chinese, let alone Tibetan, are also very rare. JUDDHO (talk · contribs) needs to understand that 1) If this is his culture’s creation story, that’s fine, but it must be told that way, and cannot be written as objective fact and 2) above all, it must be sourced with reliable sources. I am willing to coach him on the English, and the definition of a reliable source, but I am working with an iPhone and cannot get into google books myself. Since he seems to passionately feel that the article is correct, let’s help him get it to our standards. Possibly as a draft if people here prefer.Elinruby (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify, after having read the above and the article there appears to be a whole lot of
WP:SYNTH going on but if Elinruby is willing to help ...... Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, he has to be willing to be helped, and there have to *be* sources. It sounded for a minute like he was saying this is oral history he is recording, which is not what Wikipedia does, but I can in that case probably point out some better places to do that. I am interested and have worked on stuff like this before, Operation Car Wash for one. I am willing to give it a good shot, shrug. It’s a topic that might be worth an effort — we are not exactly inundated with submissions about 7th-century Tibet, and he clearly is new to Wikipedia, so... I am pretty confident I can help him deal with the RS and English issues. OR and SYNTH are indeed dangers, yes. And I am also assuming that the problem with the sources is in fact a language problem. But although there aren’t many English-language sources out there, as best I can tell, what this says is consistent with our other Tibetan history articles. Up to you, JUDDHO (talk · contribs) buddy. I assure you that the Google Translate or whatever you are using is having a lot of problems with word order, for a start. And that the reliable sources rule is in fact a thing, much more so than some of the other Wikipedias. Elinruby (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Checkuser confirms
WP:G5. Guess that renders the nom moot. Moonjail (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete the article, while one of the delete votes was only tentatively expressed. Equally, while two keeps were strongly expressed, there wasn't enough for this to be a clear keep outcome.

(non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Pedro Rodríguez (soldier)

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

Fails

WP:GNG. One local news story, a DoD story and Arlington Cemetery (which is not RS), all the rest are about his unit and not him personally Mztourist (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG in my view. Intothat darkness 15:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Mild delete seems almost important, but I'm unaware of the importance of the Silver Star award. Agree that the sources aren't much. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Silver Star Medal (SSM) is the United States Armed Forces' third-highest military decoration for valor in combat. The Silver Star Medal is awarded primarily to members of the United States Armed Forces for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States. He earned two Silver Stars within a seven-day period during the Korean War. This in itself is an amazing feat. According to the article Silver Star he is a Notable recipient. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference and you added him as a notable Silver Star recipient on 22 March 2005 here: [19]. Mztourist (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The attempt to game the system to create an inclusion we see above I clearly do not like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're both right, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However the Department of Defense describes the Silver Star Medal in its Military Awards for Valor - Top 3 U.S. [20] as follows: The Silver Star is the third-highest military combat decoration that can be awarded to a member of the United States Armed Forces. It is awarded for gallantry in action:

While engaged in action against an enemy of the United States;
While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or
While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

Actions that merit the Silver Star must be of such a high degree that they are above those required for all other U.S. combat decorations.

This soldier was awarded two of these medals in one week. If this doesn't ,ake him notable then tell of someone else who has been awarded more then one Silver Star Medal in a week. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We all know the criteria for awards of the Silver Star, its not that notable as can be seen by the many people who have been awarded multiple of them. Mztourist (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there are several who earned the SS during a single week in the Korean War. For example, Edward D Williams received two Silver Stars over a two day period Williams. Roam41 (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From the first SS citation: "After the enemy weapon fired again, Sergeant RODRIGUEZ charged the position, yelling and shooting his rifle demoralizing the enemy and causing him to flee in haste, taking his gun with him, but leaving ammunition and rations behind. The gallantry and extreme devotion to duty displayed by Sergeant RODRIGUEZ reflect great credit upon himself and the military service". From the second SS citation: "When Sergeant RODRIGUEZ received the order to move his platoon to assist the stalled unit, he ran forward and led his troops in a furious assault, causing the enemy to retreat hastily, thereby relieving the besieged lead platoon. Continuing his charge, Sergeant Rodriguez pursued the fleeing enemy and covered by friendly machine gun fire, he personally searched the area to rout any enemy troops which might have been left behind. The aggressive leadership and personal gallantry exhibited by Sergeant Rodriguez reflect the highest credit upon himself and the military service". Maybe in the opinion of some editors, he is not notable, but this isn't about opinions nor "essays" this is about regarding his military actions as a heroic soldier who is per-se notable. The unit which he belonged to was awarded the Bravery Gold Medal of Valour of Greece and the Congressional Gold Medal. Now, I ask for the third time in this nomination, who else has been awarded the nations third highest military medal within a weeks period? Tony the Marine (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you copying over long tracts from the page? Participants in this discussion have read the page. Mztourist (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing sufficient sources to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - RS do exist. Here is one from the US Department of Defense archives of war heroes.^[1] --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you copying over a reference that is already on the page? Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Department of Defense doesn't have a hero's profile on every soldier but has one on this solder. I believe he is notable. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question of why you think its necessary to copy into here a reference that is already on the page. We know its there, we've read it. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find a few reliable sources, like this over here:^{Loser talk page
) 22:14, 7 February, 2021 (UTC)}

That is the first reference on the page. Why are you copying in a reference that is already on the page? Mztourist (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being awarded two Silver Stars is not notable enough to justify a WP article. The Army gave out over 10,000 of these medals in Korea, with many soldiers receiving more than one. Also, this article is relying entirely on a single source: the DOD story. Two of the references lead to it directly, one leads to a cut and paste of same (Arlington.net) and a third quotes from it verbatim (Puerto Rico Herald). Starting in 1999, for human interest purposes, the DOD wrote several short pieces about some of the residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington DC. They profiled Mr. Rodriguez (a twenty year resident) and 17 other retirees living there, many of whom had no valor awards at all. List Certainly all of those profiled had served honorably, but this single article is not enough to establish notability. Roam41 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist and Roam41. Keep arguments rely on reposting already present references (very minor coverage) as if they were new information to be taken into account. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
guideline. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

As always, I referred to SOLDIER and GNG in my nomination. What "multiple significant awards" are you referring to? The non-notability of two Silver Stars has already been clearly established above. Mztourist (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The
WP:SOLDIER which, as noted, is an unofficial essay with no standing. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

"SIGCOV which is false" - then let's go through the sources in the article in detail: excluding the medal citations and other primary source/database-type listings (which are not useful for determining notability): WaPo; NY Daily News; Morning Journal are basically the same as far as we're concerned since they have not a single mention of "Pedro Rodriguez"; NBC gives us a namecheck, but that's a trivial mention not amounting to WP:SIGCOV; Puerto Rico Herald is the only one to go into more detail, but even if we put aside any doubts about the source or how much that coverage is SIGCOV (it looks more like a single example, and looks like the article subject was even interviewed, so...), it would still be a single source, short of the GNG requirements for multiple ones. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SOLDIER or not, significant award or not, the fact is that all of these criteria are ultimately subordinate to
WP:GNG. Given that the article seems based on a source by the DoD (which can hardly be considered independent, especially since they're the ones which gave the awards...), and that I can't seem to find anything else beyond database-style award/cemetery/... listings, this is unlikely to be met, hence this likely fails on this criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As mentioned, SOLDIER is an essay, but I don't think it really matters here. The sources provided don't meet the significance or independence thresholds required of the GNG. As of this revision four of the refs don't directly deal with Rodriguez, five are inarguably primary sources, and the remainder seem plainly unreliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
65th Infantry Regiment#Notable Puerto Rican members where he is mentioned. With up to 150,000 Silver Stars having been awarded, it's not unusual to have earned multiple, and it's not notable just for them to have been within a short period. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep I'm sure he's about the only person from Puerto Rico, often considered to be another country and separate culture from the United States, to receive two Silver Stars. I found at least one list and will do some research. Durindaljb (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only person from Puerto Rico to be awarded two Silver Stars, even if true, is not a basis for notability, only SIGCOV in multiple RS of him will satisfy GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and in any case he isn't the only person from Puerto Rico to be awarded two silver stars. Intothat darkness 04:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rudrabhishek Enterprises Ltd

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

The sources provided does not establish the importance of this company. Most of the sources provided shows only the profit and income of the company. I can only find one reliable source from the list (but it focus mainly on the company founder). All other sources provided may not be reliable thus completely failing

WP:COMPANY Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Economic Times has a few pieces by/close to the company founder (self-authored, about what he's reading,about office work after lockdown) but these are insubstantial in looking towards
notability here. AllyD (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative vehicle lighting

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

This is a procedural nomination, requested by 92.3.131.156 (talk · contribs) here. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The articles one reference is to a shopping sight, and the article isn't write in an encyclopedic fashion. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Automotive lighting as a primary subject. Nightfury 13:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automobiles are not the only type of vehicle. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, I'm not sure as to where you are going with that, as the article I quoted covers all motor vehicles? Nightfury 20:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bicycles such as mine are not motor vehicles. A train would not normally be considered an automotive vehicle. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the nomination provides no reason to delete and so there is no case to answer. Myself, I have a variety of decorative lights for my bicycle so it looks like a Christmas tree when the occasion demands. I especially like wheel lights that flash as they go round and you can get quite sophisticated ones that form pictures such as Monkey Lights. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies
improve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't believe it's worthwhile or notable,but if you do please go ahead. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no adequate sourcing, no evidence that this is an encyclopedic topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources here or in the article (or that I can see in my BEFORE) suggest this topic meets
WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No evidence this satisfies
WP:N.----Pontificalibus 08:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. "Automobiles can also be decorated with Christmas lights at Christmastime"... well, yes, that's true, because one can technically decorate almost anything. Without sourcing to suggest that the lighting of conveyances for aesthetic purposes is a topic of note, this is not an encyclopedic topic. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per material nominator (the IP user) — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not a single source being used in the article, and none of the discussion over the last week in this AFD has turned up any, even the two Keep votes. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, this is a pretty clear failure of the
WP:GNG. Searching for sources shows that, yes, products like this do exist. But there is no actual coverage or discussion of the concept that would show that this idea is any more notable than happening to place lights on any other object. Rorshacma (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This is one of those "mundane" articles - we know it exists, but can't find good sources. There is also a significant overlap with other topics. For example I found Underglow to be something which probably is a subset of this. Custom car is related. Automotive lighting is a superset. Not sure where exactly this fits it.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet GNG, is not an encyclopedic topic. Article is entirely an OR essay. // Timothy :: talk 03:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeular

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

A before search shows the organization doesn’t satisfy

bare notability. The awards they claim to have one are negligible seeing as they are non notable awards. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your comments. Regarding the New York Times article displaying an error code, maybe could you try again as the link is valid.

All the other articles are related to the organization by primary media sources which demonstrate notability. TechCrunch is a leading tech publisher and has written 3 articles on the company. Regarding the awards, these are notable within the EU. In summary, I believe the inclusion of this organization demonstrates value to Wikipedia. DarkerAngels (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage from major publications, NY Times, GQ, TechCrunch, Wired and Inc. Don't think this should be nominated at all. Meets
WP:GNG.Webmaster862 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
- A recent RfC has agreed that GNG is not the applicable guideline for determining which sources may be used to establish notability. The applicable SNG is
  HighKing⁺⁺ 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Hi, can you clarify what RfC you are referring to? Adumbrativus (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  On the
  HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:NCORP. TechCrunch is a famous bad NCORP source. The listing of outlets where the company was mentioned is unsustainable. Notability needs to be established in the article and it doesn't look like it's possible to establish it. Weight in the article is on the coverage itself, not so much the company. Information in the article needs to be supported by sources, not a listing of references supported by a short promotional text. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I am unable to locate any
HighKing⁺⁺ 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Privaledge

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

Subject does not meet

WP:GNG. Has a review in a local paper, other coverage consists of extremely short "reviews" in some hip hop blogs (which appear to be announcements from the subject) and one passing mention by Washington Post. His songs have ~1,000 views on YouTube apart from one or two song featuring him which have 100K views. Has not won awards. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the subject have to meet

WP:NMG seems to be more appropriate? -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 19:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I linked to

WP:GNG as I was discussing the available coverage, but if he does meet the musician-specific notability guidelines then that can be sufficient. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 12:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep There is a certain notability according to
Odyssey-- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 20:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The XXL "presentation" looks paid for; either way it's insignificant. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see notability in any of the sources or in any combination of sources. Fails GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Broomfield

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

non-notable person who had the misfortune of being killed by ISIS. Wasn't notable before his death and aside from some sensational stories, there isn't anything in the way of in depth coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 01:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep seems to meet GNG. This person has a few reliable, national levela source. Like the LA Times, NBC, and Newsweek. However, I usually air on the side of keep. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think a web search shows he measures up to GNG Geo Swan (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course major publications are going to write about an american being killed by ISIS but it still doesn't make them
notable. CUPIDICAE💕 14:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. After a short blip of media coverage after his death, there has been nothing. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As said before, he wasn't notable before his death. AliochaKara (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes GNG. See sources here.[21] Prax's comment that "of course major publications are going to write about" .. does not conflict w my view that he meets GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. The weight in the coverage is on the fact that an american volunteer was killed, but the deceased subject himself doesn't inherit notability from this brief fact. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you explain? Are you saying that he has GNG coverage, but you view coverage of him being killed as not falling within GNG, because in your view that is "inheriting notability"? 2603:7000:2143:8500:90B2:2512:1834:A779 (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This looks like a case of
WP:BIO1E. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 07:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as not seeing evidence that establishes sufficient notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoundCulture

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

Fails GNG and NEVENT. I'm not seeing any third-party coverage of this festival in reliable sources. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found a few minor mentions, but nothing the would pass
WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Festival events are reported in local media and some performances have been broadcast on national radio.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. You would think a music festival, especially one of this vintage, would be replete with IRS refs, but I could not find any via a Google search, nor via a ProQuest database search of Australasian newspapers (a much winder and deeper search than google). Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silig

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

A 6th-century Sasanian known only from an inscription found on a ring. The article on the find contains little more about the man and I couldn't find much else to satisfy WP:GNG. Possible candidate to merge to Üçtəpə, Goygol, the location of the find - Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anecdotally, this ring, and other pieces of evidence has been used to push iranian/pan-turanist claims to Azerbaijan's history as either a turkicist or an iranian territory, at least from what my iranian friends tell me. However, I'm having difficulty finding any RS on this topic, and given that I don't speak persian or turkish, I can't confirm this. I've put a note on wikiproject iran, if any persian speaking wikipedians can chime in, lmk if my friends are full of bs, or if this is indeed substantiated. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no prejudice against redirect/merge. Barring in-depth discussion in some undisclosed source, there is no evidence that he is a notable historical figure; it seems as though he was a guard commander, which is not enough unless, again, there are sources which discuss his significance. That seems unlikely since his character is known only thanks to a single artifact. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are no guidelines that state how many sources about a said person is required to make a article about them. There is an academic source of 7 pages about him named A TURK OFFICER OF THE SĀSĀNIAN KING XUSRŌ I, which is more than enough information to add in the article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources". I've read the journal article, the first three pages are about an old, mistaken interpretation of the engraving on the ring. On the next page we learn that Silig is a Turkic name and that he was commander of the guard of the royal tent. There follows a discussion of Turks in Sassania in general and speculation as to which group of Turks the man might have belonged. I don't see much more that can be added to the article. To be honest there are more compelling grounds for an article on the ring than there is on the man. I'd be interested to read any other sources - Dumelow (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete.—Silig has no significant coverage, nor did it radically change our understanding of Turks in the Persian Empire. Silig was not an important historical figure or archaeological discovery. I would argue deleting this if the lead BrxBrx has goes nowhere. --Lord Dweebington1 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto Üçtəpə,_Goygol Content definitely warrants a mention in said article. Pladica (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect somewhere. My preferred redirect target would be something related to king XUSRŌ I. The truth is that we KNOW nothing about him except his name and position, so that there is no scope for expanding the article other than by original research (i.e. hoax /invention. I have not read the article, but my guess is that this is a discussion of the context, which would be better included in an article on his royal master. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO, NSOLDIER. Their is no SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources provided about the ring and inscription do not provide SIGCOV about the subject. // Timothy :: talk 12:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV; fails GNG. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If enough (

reliable) sources are discovered to bring it over a notability bar, no prejudice against revisiting. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Münchner Tor

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

PROD'd in 2017 and dePROD'd, so ineligible. No indication of notability, either by virtue of height, architecture, or historicity. Unsourced since creation; de.wiki article similarly lacking. Doesn't even crack the top 100 tallest in Germany, and is only the 10th highest in Munich, so assuming inherent notability from height is right out also. No significant independent sources located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. I find the same deficiencies; it seems to be just another office building of no distinction. Mangoe (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete: couldn't find significant coverage online; it is mentioned in this Süddeutsche article (not
WP:RS). Construction of the building was finished in 2003, so there might be offline sources out there. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Hai

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

With only 3 appearances and no activity since 2010, this BLP may not pass

WP:NFOOTY. – robertsky (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does pass NFOOTBALL, but barely, and there is longstanding consensus that players who scrape by on NFOOTBALL but fail comprehensively on GNG (like here) are not notable. Giant Snowman 11:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails
NFOOTBALL presumes significant coverage as a result of its criteria, but there are barely any sources about the subject. Only sources I could find other than the one in the article are not significant coverage. [22] [23] — Eliyr [ talk ] 01:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not meet the criteria set out by
NFOOTBALL Devoke water 18:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Meri Subha Ka Sitara

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

While this drama does appear to have existed, the only evidence for this that can be found on the internet is episodes uploaded to Dailymotion, which obviously are not valid for our purposes. I didn't find any RS mentions in English; in Urdu [24] and [25] did come up, but both are just single-mention namedrops in the context of

WP:NTV does say that shows that have aired on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience are likely to be notable, the fact that we can't find a single source that even states the fact that this drama aired on Geo TV (which otherwise is most certainly such a network in Pakistan) likely means nothing Wikipedia-worthy can be made on it. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivesh Kumar

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

As per Wikipedia guidelines - Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. Also, the subject has not received SIGNIFICANT coverage to meet the notability guideline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:D487:A600:CAC:35F7:BB98:5CDA (talk) 23:42, February 10, 2021 (UTC)

Keep - Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from edit summary from when they AfD tagged the article. Article had been
WP:NPOL as an elected Indian state legislator. The references are in dire need of improvement and the article possibly needs to be stubified, but there is no justification for deleting the article entirely. ‎ --Finngall ^talk 04:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 04:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to hear from you and other experienced editors as to why they are ignoring the last sentence of the guidelines mentioned here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges that says that just getting elected does NOT guarantee notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to hear from you as to why you are ignoring the first guideline, whereby members of state legislatures (in this case Bihar Legislative Assembly) of federal states (in this case India) are presumed to be notable by Wikipedia standards. You seem to be hung up on the word "local" which in this case would apply to cities and governmental subdivisions below the state level, not at the state level as is the case here. --Finngall ^talk 17:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the complete last sentence of the guideline for Politicians and judges that contains a sub-clause "OR AN UNELECTED CANDIDATE FOR POLITICAL OFFICE, DOES NOT GUARANTEE NOTABILITY" which is an addendum to first guideline. This sub-clause does not contain the word "local". So irrespective of which level of election it is, winning or losing does NOT guarantee notability unless there is SIGNIFICANT coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, he was elected in 2010? He was defeated for reelection in 2015, but that in no way negates the previous victory. --Finngall ^talk 18:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does not negate the previous victory but it does not guarantee notability either, unless there is significant coverage. You keep ignoring the fact that "DOES NOT GUARANTEE" is an addendum to the winning/losing clause. No one has shown a SIGNIFICANT coverage so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major surgery carried out. Passes NPOL, elected member of a state legislature. --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be so kind as to provide to this AFD at least three articles on the subject that would prove that the person has received SIGNIFICANT coverage, which is a requirement for being notable as per Wikipedia guidelines?

Could you be so kind as to listen to what you're being told? State legislators are inherently notable under

WP:NPOL #1 — which means that so long as it's possible to verify that they actually held the claimed role and aren't an outright hoax, their article must be allowed to exist regardless of whether it's written and sourced up to scratch yet or not. They are not "local" officeholders under NPOL #2; they are state officeholders under NPOL #1, and are thus held to a different standard than the one you're trying to shoehorn him into. And no, the fact that he was defeated when he ran for reeelection in 2015 does not negate the fact that he held an inherently notable office for five years before that, either. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way I'm an attorney by profession and majority of my opponents have lost their cases against me is because they are unable to distinguish and interpret the difference one word can make in a clause of a contract or statute. For example in this notability guideline - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians it uses the word "CABINET" (please note it says cabinet level are generally regarded as notable) which changes the notability interpretation here because only around 5% of elected legislators in India actually hold a cabinet position. The subject in this case also did not hold any cabinet office and did not receive any SIGNIFICANT coverage.

The base notability tests for politicians are spelled out at

WP:POLOUTCOMES — the latter is only a summary of established practice in certain special circumstances where interpretation of NPOL tends to be disputed (like some cabinet ministers and city councillors), and is not the sum total of all our inclusion standards for all political offices. The rule is not, and never has been, that people are only notable if they held a cabinet position. Cabinet ministers are notable, yes, which is specifically pointed out in POLOUTCOMES because there are some countries (e.g. the United States) where the cabinet are outside the legislature (and thus some people have erroneously brought US cabinet members to AFD on the grounds that they weren't elected legislators) — but in countries, such as India, Canada and the United Kingdom, where cabinet members are in the legislature, serving in the legislature makes a person notable regardless of whether they were cabinet ministers or just ordinary legislators. If somebody passes NPOL, then they pass NPOL regardless of whether their particular situation is listed in POLOUTCOMES or not, and NPOL does not restrict political notability exclusively to the cabinet. So citing POLOUTCOMES does not make you the guy who gets to drop the mic — NPOL drops the mic on POLOUTCOMES, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy keep seems like a bad-faith nomination. He was the MLA from Bihar [26]. passes NPOL.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be so kind as to provide to this AFD at least three articles on the subject that would prove that the person has received SIGNIFICANT coverage, which is a requirement for being notable as per Wikipedia guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NPOL is one of the few guidelines which I would say we should hold to as long as we can at all verrify. People in legislatures of states that are part of federal Republics are clearly notable (US, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, India etc) so this qithout question passes it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be so kind as to provide to this AFD at least three articles on the subject that would prove that the person has received SIGNIFICANT coverage, which is a requirement for being notable as per Wikipedia guidelines?

Delete - If we are following the Wikipedia guideline then it should be a no-brainer. Guideline clearly says that "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability". It also states that the subject should have received SIGNIFICANT coverage to meet the notability guideline. In this case SIGNIFICANT coverage is missing. The candidates party supporters can fill this discussion with a large number of "Keep" count but we need to follow the guidelines set in Wikipedia. Please see this link on notability guideline (last sentence in Politicians and Judeges category) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges It is very unfortunate that some of the experienced Wikipedia editors are ignoring the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Those who are saying it passes NPOL are clearly not reading the guidelines in DETAIL.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is a state politician, not a local one.
Phil Bridger (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

We are reading NPOL correctly. You're the one who isn't. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Members of the
WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

And to answer the IP's question, there are news sources about the subject, including this article in the Hindustan Times. --Enos733 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You provided just one article about the subject being beaten up in a train, this certainly cannot be called SIGNIFICANT coverage. Please note that we have to set aside our bias/emotions that he is an Indian and needs to be in Wikipedia. We have to think purely in terms of meeting the Wikipedia guideline which is whether the subject has received SIGNIFICANT coverage to be considered notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "bias/emotions that he is an Indian and needs to be in Wikipedia" going on. Most of the commenters here aren't even Indian. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support keeping of an an article about a state (or equivalent) legislator in the USA, Russia, Brazil, Germany or any other country where people in sub-national bodies have legislative powers.

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, meets
back to the horse? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The Legislative Assembly of Bihar is a state level role that passes NPOL #1, not a "local" role. Yes, the article needs some improvement, but state legislators are not deletable on "local political officeholder" grounds — it's a state legislature, not a "local" legislature. And frankly, considering that participating in this discussion is the IP's first Wikipedia participation ever, I strongly suspect a
WP:BADFAITH attempt to erase someone the IP has personal beef with for some reason that's none of Wikipedia's concern. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

@

WP:SNOW closed soon, though. --Finngall ^talk 18:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - Bihar has 100+ million inhabitants. If Bihar's population would be counted separately from the rest of India, Bihar alone would be the 15th most populous country in the world. Just sayin'. --Soman (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We consider MLAs are notable so easily passes
WP:NPOL Padavalam🌂 ► 16:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Elected member of legislative assembly, hence is notable by virtue Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 12:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty City Anime Con

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

No reliable sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:NEVENT. SK2242 (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Found no non-routine
WP:ROUTINE coverage is from 2016, which is a bad sign for a supposedly yearly convention. Jumpytoo Talk 02:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sycamore Flat, California

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

Another non-notable subdivision, apparently: I can find out nothing about it other than the location. There is a vineyard a bit to the north which may or may not be the source of most hits: there is another Sycamore Flat area in Angeles National Forest, and it is impossible to fully prevent it from showing up in these results, so it's not altogether clear that the Sycamore Flat vineyard is the one here or not. At any rate, the subdivision fails verification, as I cannot even tell whether it's really called this. Note that the road is named "Sycamore Flats Rd.", but searching for that name variant produces nothing but real estate hits. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Salinas, California. Content remains undeleted in the history should anyone want to (very selectively) merge it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsa Knolls, California

)

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

A non-notable subdivision NE of Salinas. There were almost as many GHits on the middle school there as there were for the locale (the latter all being the usual geoclickbait and real estate stuff) and the book hits were all geo-name-drops. The only thing beyond that was news about the middle school's principal dying in his sleep back in October, which is tragic but hardly the stuff of encyclopedic content. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:GEOLAND, as it is not legally recognised (unincorporated). --IWI (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Nope - "legally recognized" does not mean incorporated. There are plenty of large, legally recognized settlements that are unincorporated, e.g. Kidlington and Topanga, California .----Pontificalibus 09:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flawed rationale. Either it's a subdivision of Salinas, in which case we must merge there per
WP:GEOLAND, or else it's a distinct legally recognized settlement, in which case it warrants its own article. Looking at official US government maps, the settlement is awarded legal recognition by virtue of it's designation on maps as a distinct settlement. for example on the 1984 Salinas Quadrangle 7.5 minute sheet. Even if it has later become merged with Salinas, a separate article is still warranted.----Pontificalibus 09:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Maps are not evidence that it is legally recognised, as stated below. There would be some form of legal document to demonstrate its recognition, which has not been found. This is not an example of a legally recognised unincorporated settlement from what I can see. --IWI (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that when the map was drawn it was a sizeable settlement distinct from Salinas. Legal recognition of such a settlement is a given, not because it was on a map, but because of the particular size and location of it - it's inconceivable that such a settlement was not recognized as such by any legal authority at that time. For example here is an article discussing the proposed annexation of Bolsa Knolls and other areas to the city of Salinas. The idea that this proceeded without Bolsa Knolls being recognized in law is absurd.----Pontificalibus 20:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Salinas. No,
WP:GEOLAND point 2, requiring siginificant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 19:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

comment as far as merger is concerned, the two problems are (a) there is almost nothing here to merge, and (b) articles on cities almost never say much about the neighborhoods, which I think is entirely reasonable: too many of them cannot be reliably documented, so it's undue to include the few that show up on topo maps. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Assael

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

Completely fails

WP:GNG. I propose the deletion of this article. The author who created this Wikipedia page appears to have a close relation to the person. Two users, who might be related to one another (possible sockpuppetry here) , have been involved in creating articles and entries for the whole family: AntoniadK & Ggatsby - a closer look at their contributions could convince you. Furthermore, a number of unreliable sources along with personal websites, self-referential pages seem to appear. The lack of notability and suspected conflict of interest contribute to the above hypothesis. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Update: one of the users appeared and is deleting templates from the main article, and brings back lots of sources that either appear as advertisement of the article or contain personal websites. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC) — Mightberightorwrong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Although I'm a little concerned that we appear to have two SPAs warring over this article, on the merits I think it's too soon for
WP:NPROF for this 2019 DPhil. (He is middle author on a fairly highly cited paper, and first author on a decently cited paper, but I don't think this is enough in a very high citation field.) No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The user
WP:GNG. Instead this move is in bad-faith as the edits are non-constructive. There are similar edits from two users (Mightberightorwrong and 79.66.195.193, Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry) and their history indicates vandalism WP:Vandalism in multiple articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoniadK (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC) — AntoniadK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Update by
WP:NPROF, but is about edits in bad-faith by two accounts, Mightberightorwrong and 79.66.195.193, that have a history of vandalism in multiple articles, which is against a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Thus, I do challenge this deletion since it's not created by a user in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntoniadK (talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't understand where this is coming from? Is there a rule against nominating an article for deletion on Wikipedia? Have I violated WP's statute? If the answer's no, then I don't see what the fuss is about. User AntoniadK, who appears to be associated with the author and edited, plus created exclusively this very article, presented me as a vandal, which I am not, and attempted to distract others from voting. If there is enough notability here, other users are free to decide. In case the community votes to keep this article, then so be it. In the meantime, I will repeat my previous words regarding notability; even that small number of citations is not enough, in my opinion, to retain this particular person on Wikipedia. But, of course, that's just my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightberightorwrong (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Illegitimate section blanking without any reason or constructive comment, as shown in the history of edits, is an act of vandalism
  WP:VANDAL, specially when the sections contained references from unbiased sources such as New Scientist, Financial Times, Independent, BBC News, The Times and University of Oxford. Similar behaviour has been observed by the edits of 79.66.195.193 who acted at the same time with Mightberightorwrong, as well as in other articles with a similar behaviour. Last but not least, I share the same view that the community should decide for the deletion of this article, but the aforementioned behaviour is a clear indicator of the user's intentions and bad faith which goes agaist the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. AntoniadK (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]