Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 18

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.

1994 Interserie

1994 Interserie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources regarding Interserie events are unlikely to be in English, if they exist. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Nall Derringer

Nancy Nall Derringer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't find any significant coverage beyond brief mentions as the person who initially uncovered a minor Bush Administration scandal. User:Pburka deprodded due to this mention that she won an award, but that's hardly enough coverage to write an article with, nor (AFAICT) are there any specific deletion criteria that consider awards for journalism Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Searching for journalists is notoriously difficult because so many of the hits are their own bylines. However I found that, in addition to the Hoosier Press Award, she was named a University of Michigan Knight-Wallace Journalism Fellow in 2003 (U Mich press release, New York Times), and she shows up several times in Dead Before Deadline (University of Akron Press, 2004). She's also got a handful of GScholar citations (mostly as NN Derringer), but not enough to make a
  WP:NPROF claim. I think she's clearly more notable than the average journalist. pburka (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. After stewing on this for a few days, I think she's sufficiently notable. The Knight-Wallace Fellowship is a significant award, and combined with her big plagiarism story, I'm convinced of notability. pburka (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Simply winning a notable fellowship doesn't inherently make one notable. Yes, she has done good work, but, that doesn't mean she merits a Wikipedia article. We'd have every single journalist with an
  WP:NOTNEWS. But, none of it is enough to convince me the subject is notable enough to merit inclusion with significant coverage. Missvain (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment. It's my opinion that we should have articles for every

WP:ANYBIO#1. pburka (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Ha! Well, I admit - one of my bestfriends is a Murrow winner and she's basically not notable outside of winning the award and it was only covered by the media outlet she worked for at the time. So... will take a lot to convince me that every award winner of a Murrow award meets general notability guidelines due to

WP:INHERITED. Missvain (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm puzzled by the reference to NOTINHERITED. That essay says that people aren't automatically notable by dint of a relationship to a notable person or organization. Being associated with an award (e.g. a Nobel Prize bureaucrat) would be an "inherited" claim, but receiving an award (e.g. a Nobel Prize winner) is evidence of notability. pburka (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Not enough to pass notability for BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Austen

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

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

Not seeing any reviews of her books, so

The Party Line (books) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Her books exist but searches found no significant reviews or other coverage of her or her work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I searched for sourcing under all her names and did not find anything that helps her qualify for
  WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: per nom. Does not qualify for a BLP article on WP. Kolma8 (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Norm. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space Navies Party

Space Navies Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable organization. Arguably not an organization at all, just a vanity label for a novelty candidate who received less than 1% of the vote. No substantial coverage. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:BEFORE doesn't help redeem it. Chetsford (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that this subject does not meet current criteria for notability. No prejudice to restoring to draft if additional and better sources became available in the future. BD2412 T 04:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibli Rubayat Ul Islam

Shibli Rubayat Ul Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

"Chairman of the Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission" is not an important title/post for which you will become automatically notable. Apart from regular news, press release, single mentions there is no significant coverage. Fails

• The subject appears to be notable but our article is very promotional.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks. Problem is subject lacks significant coverage where it addresses the subject directly and in detail. Most of the sources are regular press coverage e.g Shibli Rubayat become BSEC chairman (same PR added from different site 12-15 times), or single mentions (most of them) or noting to do the subject (like "37th BCS preliminary test stays on Sep 30", "The real cost of evening and professional programs at public universities"!). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that being chairman of the

  Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination -Shakil Hosen ^Talk 10:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As there raised a question about if the article appeared promotional, I have updated the article and removed unnecessary references. So, kindly have a look at this article now, and please let me know if I need to change anything. I want to request humbly not to delete the article. I will provide any further development touch for this.TARWIND (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom & due to promotional tone of the article. The subject even promotes this of his social media platform, thus I suspect that subject may have direct connection with the author. -Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting (archive), yet they claim they don't have any connection! --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagreed, In this article, I have just gathered all the information I got about him from my research and mentioned all the sources as references to verify the statements. And here you are talking about the news source's headlines are "promotional"! Don't you know how to assess a reference? And can you please explain what do you mean by "promotional/promotional tone"? Please kindly mention what is getting promoted here and explain how you can say that he is "not important" after reading the current version of the whole article and the talk page. Coming to another point, What makes a Facebook's unverified fake/fan page's post a strong opposition against this article, and how can you be sure that I have personal relations with him? I clearly said that earlier that I have done it from my personal interest. Why are you opposing the article with irrational opinion and coming with your whole team by taking it personally? If you think any information of the article is irrelevant/going against the terms of Wikipedia, then you and everyone are welcomed to edit to develop the content. TARWIND (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bangladesh is not the financial powerhouse that the U.S. is, or even that Norway is, and the BSEC doesn't have the clout of the U.S. SEC. But I found it plausible, as Phil Bridger suggests, that the chairman would be noteworthy enough that sufficient independent, reliable, secondary sources would exist so that we could write a whole, fair, and balanced biography. So I started editing to fix the promotional tone. Halfway through I regretfully concluded that the nominator is correct. Problems with the available sources include redundancy, a lack of secondary coverage beyond parroting his official bio, and coverage that merely quotes him or say he attended or spoke at a meeting rather than supporting claimed achievements. In 10-20 years, analysts looking back at his tenure may write enough about his accomplishments to justify a stand-alone bio, or he may end up in the dustbin of history. Does not meet
  WP:PROF. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: per nom. Not enough to pass notability for BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom and Worldbruce. --hroest 00:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Ling

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

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

Reads like a subject-provided promotional blurb. No source cited is sufficiently in-depth to establish notability, all are either passing mentions in self-help lists or short book reviews; one is a contributor description obviously provided by the subject to the publication, another is a TED Talk video by the subject. Fails GNG and NAUTHOR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and my attempts to find sufficient sources to support
  WP:AUTHOR notability, which were unsuccessful. Beccaynr (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I did find a handful of interviews with her in [1][2][3] in reliable secondary sources, but, a handful of puffy interviews and mentions in listacles isn't enough to convince me the subject is notable right now. I also searched for her book and did not find any major reviews of it in any reliable secondary sources. I think it is
  WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.
  talk) 03:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: per nom. Not notable enough to have a BLP article. Kolma8 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Crutchfield

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

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

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

Unable to find any significant coverage. He founded a seemingly

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are too many people by the name of Alex Crutchfield. It's necessary to add more info to identify this person. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored an older version, full of links that don't support the claims and unreferenced claims of grandeur to facilitate this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strangely the Bloomberg profile was removed. It did exist back in 2016 according to the wayback machine. AFAIK, they remove the profiles only by user request. If the subject didn't want to have a public profile, then there shouldn't be a WP article either. I support the deletion. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable enough to pass ANYBIO. Kolma8 (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Recent work to remedy some of the article's issues have improved it, and are ongoing. It's reasonable to foresee that, given his age and career trajectory, he is only going to become increasingly prominent as time goes on. Valens Connor (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC) — Valens Connor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How is he

WP:CRYSTAL. Toddst1 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

* Keep. Vast international business expertise and involvement in several companies suggests considerable notoriety within the business world. Impending IPO could significantly increase wealth to further notable levels. Jax2114 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC) — Jax2114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Suggesting considerable notoriety within the business world in no way comes close to passing

WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Admin comment - Two participants in this conversation have been blocked as suspected sockpuppets. Missvain (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cowrywise

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

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

Loads of sources about the same funding the corporation has acquired, but that is not true claim to notability. Why is this org notable? Please refer to

I see an advert for an org that fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — fails to meet NCORP and all tale signs of conflict of interest editing (upe to be precise) are very much present in the article. Celestina007 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a really tough !vote for me because I'm a huge fan and a consumer of Cowrywise services but rules are rules. Did an in-depth BEFORE search and could only find routine coverage and a single article that counts as SIGCOV. I however doubt that there's COI/UPE editing at play here because the article creator also created
  _(talk) 18:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I usually won't hop on a deletion discussion on an article I created because I believe if the community would always know best. This is Nigeria's kind of Venmo and Revolut. I have provided the necessary references to back up its notability. Like I said here, it is locally notable, meets SIGCOV and NCORP. What is Wikipedia to a local Nigerian if the topics around them can not be covered here after meeting the requirements? What are the local outreaches to more grassroot editors for if it is to build content in places far away. In the rise of fintechs, Flutterwave, Paystack and other companies can't be covered here? We are westernalizing Wikipedia if we are not holding local credible sources as they are. I would be glad if more members of the global community can shed contribute their interpretation of the policies without bias. C (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey @

_(talk) 08:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep it's got techcrunch in-depth coverage and many others, so meets
  WP:GNG.Webmaster862 (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: ATTN
  The Sokks,Celestina007, Shellwood : I have found many more in-depth articles about them and improved the article. [4][5][6] [7] and few shorter mentions [8] [9]. Webmaster862 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - Hey @

NCCORP

is a pretty tough nut to crack. I've added a source assessment table to review all the sources listed in the article and the ones you provided. Kindly share your thoughts.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Proshare	Sponsored post credited to Cowrywise	Self published source		✘ No
Guardian Nigeria		Generally a reliable source	Routine coverage of a new product	✘ No
Techcrunch	An Interview		Routine coverage	✘ No
Technext			A review	✔ Yes
Disrupt Africa			Passing mention	✘ No
Dignited		~ No evidence of editorial oversight	In depth review	~ Partial
Guardian Nigeria	Interview of CEO			✘ No
Techpoint			Routine coverage	✘ No
Y Combinator		Blog Source		✘ No
Nairametrics			Routine Coverage	✘ No
Technext			Routine coverage	✘ No
Business Day			Routine coverage	✘ No
INC				✘ No
Bloomberg			Passing mention	✘ No
BFA Global	Primary source			✘ No
Business Insider	Interview			✘ No
TechCrunch			Routine coverage	✘ No
Nairametrics				✔ Yes
TechCrunch			Routine coverage	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

@

TheSokks Any chance you can edit the table to prevent the first column making it so wide it's almost unintelligible, please? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

_(talk) 09:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I am unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. In the table above, the two that are marked as counting towards notability are reviews of one of the products (the app) and not about the company - the topic of this article. Also, the Nairametrics article is a copy of this blog post which was published months previously.
  HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Aidong Zhang

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

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

An editor who I believe to be the subject has requested deletion, per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ACM Fellow and IEEE Fellow, so not
  WP:BLP), we should be scrupulous about using high quality sources. pburka (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The ACM and IEEE fellowships are a big deal. Combined with the strong claim to
  WP:NPROF C6 and C8, I don't think there's anything marginal about notability here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep She's a named fellow at her university, and a fellow of the ACM and IEEE. --- Possibly (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Named fellow, ACM, IEEE fellowships, it's clear the subject is highly notable. The BLP requests may be legitimate, but if the supposed inaccuracies can't be identified, it's not clear how wholesale deletion would help. Could the nominator please communicate with the article's subject about what parts precisely of the article are presently objectionable? BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 22:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried, to no avail. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Eppstein have you tried to contact her via email? --hroest 00:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not an issue of the communication not getting to her. It is that her responses have been non-responsive. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to confirm, @David Eppstein:, were you able to confirm that user:Aidongzhang is actually Aidong Zhang as opposed to someone impersonating her? Best, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, no, I didn't specifically confirm that, but I see no reason to doubt. They're not acting like an impersonator. I do have an email for Zhang in my contacts but it's old and stale (the one at nsf.gov) so I would need to go by public information to email her. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She passes
  WP:LOWPROFILE as a professor at a major university, publishing hundreds of articles using their real name and accepting major fellowships / awards -- it is unreasonable to argue that the subject is keeping a low profile. --hroest 00:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. ACM founding chair of of SIG, and IEEE fellowship, are enough to establish notability.  — sbb (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes
  WP:NPROF with 15k citations and h-index of 50 as per above, seems quite impressive. GooeyMitch (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep 22 papers with more than 100 citations, well past the bar. scope_creep^Talk 13:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable: fellowships, named professorship, open and closed. According to the NPROF guideline, the h-index "should be approached with caution" so my assessment is based on the other factors. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I am copying a comment by User:Aidongzhang that has been left other places [10] [11] but not here:

  I read all the correspondence and appreciate your effort on setting a page for me. But I prefer not to have such a page since people are randomly adding stuff which may be personal or incorrect or very old stuff not reflecting me. As this is out of my control, I prefer not to have such a page if possible. I tried to make changes to correct your mistakes but every time my edit was reverted. For example, I am not the founding editor-in-chief for TCBB. I am the current editor-in-chief. Such wrong information does not promote me instead it sent wrong information to people and they might think I made such claims. So if possible, I still think it is the best to delete my page. Aidong Zhang

  I note that, following this comment, the wrong information about an editorship was corrected by Russ Woodroofe. (The only personal information in question seems to be the birth year, which Russ also removed.) --JBL (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clear pass of
  WP:LOWPROFILE. If there are specific errors on the article, they can be raised on the article's talk page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry W. Klotz Sr.

Henry W. Klotz Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No claim of notability. This person owned two historic buildings. But as notability is not inherited, there is nothing here close to SP:GNG. He operated a gas station, delivered ice, and his son was town mayor. MB 14:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no sign of notability. Use of the SocSec death index as a source is never a good sign. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Non-notable. Kolma8 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Carrie (franchise)

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

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

I am nominating this per my reasoning in

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and retitle to
  Adaptations of Carrie. As with The Shining, it may be incorrect to call it a franchise, but it is a legitimate collection in context. BD2412 T 00:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and retitle, per rationale above. Gargleafg (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Kevin Paffrath

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

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

Fails GNG and NPOL. Only routine coverage of his gubernatorial candidacy. Obviously, just running for office does not create notability. I do not see any coverage on his Youtube channel. There is one (vanity?) article about his earnings, but otherwise I don't see any in-depth reliable coverage. 1.6 million followers is a lot but that does not create notability by itself (see Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Add - previously deleted at AfD, but due to recent governor candidacy since prior deletion, I am assuming good faith and putting it back through the process. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Please tell us El Cid, what exactly did your search that prompted you to make this nomination involve? A casual news aggregator search yielded almost 500 articles relating to Paffrath (many in major publications) that were published prior to his candidacy. I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding how you were only able to come up with one article.Pc031985 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Add - Paffrath had interview on Fox News - National US news - to talk about governorship
  talk) 07:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Being interviewed on Fox News does not create notability. And the subject making videos about himself certainly does not. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait or Migrate to draft- I don't necessarily disagree on the status of this article at present, but it has just been created. Paffrath seems to me to be the only major Democrat in this major upcoming election, and could get a lot more coverage. Full deletion feels harsh, very quickly after the page creation. I've made what I believe the mistake of flagging pages for deletion right after creation, and it's not always correct. Let's wait a week or two, or migrate it back to a draft for further work. PickleG13 (talk)

I don't think 'waiting' is a good idea, because then the article will just remain indefinitely. If unnotable pages aren't flagged as they are created, they will remain for years or decades. It happens consistently. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 23:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Add - Fox News has released an article about Paffrath's video being removed on Instagram which is related to his campaign. ^[2] I will be honest, I am a little biased as I am a consistent viewer of Meet Kevin and I will try to be as neutral as possible here. However, I do believe Paffrath will become a major candidate and can see many more articles about him coming to light in the next couple of weeks. Elli21486 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - The Curbed and New York Times pieces are independent (and critical) coverage of his youtube channel. There's also the Nashville Post article about his suit with Dave Ramsey. He's either just under or just over the bar in my opinion. Empire3131 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - The page needs a lot of work. Sections are in the wrong place information is jumbled etc... I think if appropriate information is given to the page it should definitely be kept as I believe Mr Paffrath is standing as a genuine candidate. Jim 17:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimwilliams975 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Jimwilliams975 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

• Keep - Business Insider published an article describing Kevin O'Leary's comments on an interview with Paffrath ^[3]. Pat Hiban has interviewed Paffrath as real-estate investor and developer in Ventura CA ^[4]. BiggerPockets has also interviewed Paffrath ^[5]. New York Times has published a multi-page op-ed on Paffrath ^[6]. Inman News published an article detailing Paffrath's 2019 arrest in connection with a dispute with another real estate investor, Grant Cardone ^[7]. Statter911 has covered Paffrath's 'citizen reporting' of Detroit home fires ^[8]. Paffrath is NOT a household name by any stretch. However, the move delete the page from Wiki is pre-mature and has not been fully considered. I don't know or watch the guy, but its clear this is somebody wellknown and influential in real-estate investing circles (not just youtube). Matasomething (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — Matasomething (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Kevin is a famous YouTuber with more than one millions subscribers and is a public figure. He is running for Governor and also this person is the top five YouTube financial and real estate channel. Proof of Public Figure not a private citizen.
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxiZrJUH46o
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goH0DHr-f34
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHv_8HzfQOU
  • Kylekieran (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kylekieran (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

• Keep - Kevin Paffrath qualifies as a notable person under multiple criteria listed in the notable persons guideline:
  • Category 1 - Creative professional in the realm of YouTube influencer in personal finance:
    1. Listed at 12 on a recent listing of the top 50 personal finance YouTube creators https://emma-app.com/blog/2020/01/14/top-50-personal-finance-youtubers-in-the-us/
    2. Was also listed at #52 in a listing of YouTube real estate influencers https://www.amraandelma.com/100-top-real-estate-influencers/
    3. YouTube influencer with a massive body of work of over 2000 videos as of this writing, current subscriber base of 1.61 million, over 356.8 million total views, 20.7 million of which were in the last 30 days, and many videos surpassing 100k views https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/kevinpaffrath.
    4. Has been the subject of multiple national news articles for his work and success:
       • https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/millennial-couple-earns-6-million-dollars-a-year-from-youtube-and-real-estate.html
       • https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/magazine/finance-gurus-youtube.html
       • https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/06/kevin-oleary-reacts-to-a-couple-who-earn-6-million-dollars.html
  • Category 2 - Entertainer as an opinion maker
    1. Has a very large fan base or cult following on YouTube as noted above. Also has 125.5k Twitter followers https://mobile.twitter.com/realMeetKevin, 104k Instagram followers https://www.instagram.com/meetkevin/, and 10.1k FaceBook followers https://m.facebook.com/pg/meetkevin/community/
    2. Has produced over 2000 videos receiving 356.8 million views as noted above.
  • Category 3 - Politician
    1. Is a high-profile candidate for a state gubernatorial special election that is the subject of major national news coverage.
    2. Has been the subject of multiple national and local news stories:
       • https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kevin-paffrath-meet-kevin-youtuber-becomes-26th-candidate-to-announce-challenge-to-newsom/ar-BB1gQcEE
       • https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-meet-kevin-weanie-baby-censored-instagram
       • https://www.kusi.com/meet-democrat-california-gubernatorial-candidate-kevin-paffrath/
       • https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fox-supports-democrat-meet-kevin-paffraths-plan-for-governor-of-ca-301295881.html
       • https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/official-announcement-new-democratic-candidate-for-governor-to-replace-gavin-newsom-301292509.html
  • Even each of these categories individually could arguably be enough to qualify Kevin for notability under the wikipedia guidelines. Combined, however, they more than objectively surpass the criteria set forth. 206.127.53.6 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)snoopsnet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.127.53.6 — 206.127.53.6 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He meets all of the items in
  WP:GNG tavatar (discuss–?) 19:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Why delete this page? I don't understand. He's running for Governor of California. keep kevin Jjeff500 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — Jjeff500 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Kevin Jjeff500 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — Jjeff500 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per BLP1E. There are over 22,000 Youtube channels with at least as many subscribers as Mr. Paffrath. Most in favor of "keep" are repeating some variation of the fact that he declared a (longshot) candidacy for governor three days ago. It smells like a classic 1E-type publicity stunt which will not generate
  WP:LASTING coverage. AOC didn't have an article until she won her primary. Any supposition of notability for Paffrath today is CRYSTALBALLing hypothetical future notability if he wins a primary. BTW, it's worth noting that the canvassing is coming from the man himself, as he's directed his youtube/twitter followers to brigade this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • He passes
    WP:LOWPROFILE. He might fail GNG/ENT, and definitely fails NPOL right now.Empire3131 (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The problem with your argument is that unlike AOC, who was an obscure bartender and low-level campaign worker prior to winning election, Paffrath is not primarily a politician or political candidate. His candidacy had little impact on the size of his platform, and almost 500 news articles in major publications had already been written about him over the years prior to his political announcement. By all appearances this is little different than a Bloomberg-style campaign, a political outsider with considerable pre-existing notability (albeit less than Bloomberg) and substantial financial backing ($20M net worth) who wants to win office.Pc031985 (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Adding to public figure interviews adding more evidence to high profile figure. KUSI News out of San Diego interviewed him at 7:24am on May 20, 2021. While the reference video is from Paffrath's channel it does show proof of live TV interview to public. ^[1].
  • In addition Kevin O'Leary who is a figure of note with his own Wiki page has recently (May 2021) done a featured story on Paffrath that was featured on both CNBC ^[2] and MSN ^[3]
  • And while it has been mentioned above in addition to all the interviews for the governor race he was always featured in news stories last year such as being featured on MSN's Millennial Money news segment in November 2020.^[4] GalakStarscraper (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that GalakStarscraper (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Good day GorillaWarfare -- I was not canvassed. I have helped with Wiki articles before. Searched the topic, saw the discussion and added to it. GalakStarscraper (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for clarifying, I'm sure the closing admin will take that into consideration. Some people were unquestionably canvassed here, and so I have simply applied that tag to anyone who has previously contributed, but has not edited in 2021 aside to comment in this discussion and/or edit Paffrath's page. Certainly there are other reasonable explanations for it besides canvassing, but it does help to tag anomalous comments in discussions such as this where off-wiki attention has been drawn. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The question, Gorilla, is why are you tagging each and every 'keep' vote as canvassed? There are 3-4 editors you've tagged that have long editing histories on a variety of topics. Try having some evidence before you go smearing others.Pc031985 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination) § Canvassing tags

         – GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NPA grounds [12]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• Delete or wait per
  WP:BLP1E. The original article appeared as if it was written by the subject or someone close to him. The article's BLP1E status seems to hinge on (a) whether YouTube followers make a subject notable, and (b) whether running for office makes a subject notable. Many people run for office, including the governorship of California, yet are not considered notable, so the answer to (b) seems to be a relatively uncontroversial "no". The answer to (a) seems to be an interesting question, in that the subject derives income from publicity and publicity from income, and therefore seeks WP mention as a means of driving both. I would say that the article should wait until the subject does something notable. There are many real estate agents in California. Voronwae (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-notable political candidate with huge promotional concerns, fails BLP1E, 10YT. Political candidates notable only within their candidacy do not pass our notability guidelines unless some major exception applies, which isn't the case here yet. SportingFlyer T·C 15:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly a notable figure who meets all
  WP:GNG criteria. BLP1E doesn't apply since he was highly notable prior to running for office, and the decision to run didn't have a significant impact on his existing platform. He had already become a high-tier figure in the podcast/video-news world, interviewing very well-known voices in videos that get hundreds of thousands of viewers each, and already had a considerably larger regular viewership than many cable and broadcast TV news programs. Most of his interview subjects of recent years are notable enough for articles, which says something. There is plenty of secondary-source coverage to warrant an inclusion; a simple aggregator search yielded almost 500 articles in notable news sources that were published prior to his political announcement (with most of the overall coverage predating his campaign), which scuttles 1E arguments that coverage/notability resulted mainly from his candidacy, and makes primary characterizations of 'political candidate' disingenuous or uninformed. I found that coverage within a few minutes, so I'm not sure what exactly was involved in the search by the deletion nominator El Cid, who incredibly claims he found just one article. Flyer's speculative concerns around promotion would be counterbalanced by a possible political motive to put him out of view (particularly given his ability to self-fund a major on-the-ground campaign). I'm not claiming that towards anyone here, I just feel the two factors cancel themselves out.Pc031985 (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2021 — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Pc031985 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed
  to this discussion.
  • False, not canvassed. I have edited WP extensively on a variety of topics but it had been a while and I lost track of my previous username. I don't even support Paffrath's politics. I am here because subject is clearly notable, and tired of the frequent bullying by cliques of WP editors who seek to tear down and bury unpopular/inconvenient people.Pc031985 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the explanation, I'm sure the closer will take that into account. If you are able to remember your previous username, it is best practice to declare the connection on your userpage using {{User previous account}} or something similar. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Don’t delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:1A03:C672:C07D:4797:C900:4A70 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC) — 2603:8000:1A03:C672:C07D:4797:C900:4A70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: Article is good enough to pass
  WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated above (except YouTube and podcasts). ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • User:Superastig, please be specific, and help the closing administrator out. That admin is not going to look at your comment, then go back, and simply assume that all the others must be OK. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per
  talk) 07:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Kemalcan, you will have to be much more specific than that if you want to convince the closing administrator. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep: per
  WP:GNG. Noticed Fox40, KUSI, John & Ken FM 640 in LA, and Kennedy Saves the World (Fox Radio), each added articles since the discussion above has begun. Added citations for the reference of any discussion above, which likely has not considered these citations yet. WalterWhite72 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC) — WalterWhite72 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Unfortunately those sorts of sources (I may have missed one) appear to be routine campaign articles. Wikipedia keeps or deletes articles based on enduring notability, and the vast majority of political candidates do not have enduring notability, and he hasn't risen to that level yet. While it's not impossible he would be notable as a Youtuber, not only has that not been made clear, but this article was clearly created to support his candidacy. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  Inman News). He was profiled in this 24 December 2019 article in Business Insider.

  Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject

  . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The combination of all of the reliable sources strongly establishes Kevin Paffrath is notable.
  
  Sources before he announced his political campaign on 17 May 2021
  
  
  1. Detailed profiles:
     1. Jackson, Adlan (2021-03-24). "Why Finance Gurus Switched Their Bait From Millions to Thousands of Dollars". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

        The article notes: "Paffrath has a charisma that cuts through all this. He’s exceptionally talented at talking to a camera, a natural salesman. But when he turns to a flowchart breaking down the Biden stimulus proposal, what might even be sincerity leaks out. Judging by the ad hoc community formed in his comments sections, his viewers appreciate it."

     2. Martin, Emmie (2020-11-19). "This millennial couple earns $6 million a year from YouTube and real estate—here's how they spend their money". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

        The article notes: "In 2017, Kevin Paffrath’s dream was to earn over $1 million a year from The Paffrath Organization, the real estate business he owns with his wife, Lauren, in Ventura, California. In 2020, the couple earned $1.075 million in May alone. ... As his YouTube channel became increasingly lucrative, Kevin, 28, began dedicating more and more time to creating content, including getting up before the sun to make several videos a day. Lauren is the property manager for the couple’s real estate business and has also taken on full-time child-care duties for their two young sons, Jack, 5, and Max, 2."

     3. Wright, Steven T. (2019-11-15). "Meet the newest YouTube stars on the block: landlords". Curbed. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

        The article notes: "But if you spend an hour or two watching the YouTube channels of landlord influencers like Kevin “Meet Kevin” Paffrath, you’ll soon learn that investing in real estate is the first step toward creating “lasting wealth”—or, in Paffrath’s case, gaining a net worth of $5.5 million by age 27, as he claims in one of his videos. ... Though Paffrath’s cheery videos can make buying property sound like an achievable goal for many Americans, the reality is less optimistic."

  2. Articles about lawsuits and trespassing:
     1. Blois, Matt (2019-10-11). "Ramsey Solutions sues real estate YouTuber. Finance guru's firm claims breach of contract and theft of trade secrets". NashvillePost.com. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

        The article notes: "Ramsey Solutions claims that Kevin Paffrath, a real estate investor in Southern California who posts advice about the industry on YouTube, fraudulently joined a program that sends businesses new clients and published propriety information and disparaging comments online. In court filings, Paffrath claims that the lawsuit is simply an attempt at censorship and a violation of his free speech."

     2. Blois, Matt (2020-01-09). "Ramsey Solutions settles with online critic out of court. Real estate agent had mocked finance guru on YouTube". NashvillePost.com. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

        The article notes: "A December order dismissing the case doesn’t provide financial details about the settlement. ... Ramsey Solutions claims Paffrath didn’t communicate well with the company — which Paffrath disputes — and decided to remove him from the program."

     3. Hale, Steven (2019-11-06). "Deposition: Yes, Dave Ramsey Pulled Out a Gun in a Staff Meeting. Deposition: Yes, Dave Ramsey Pulled Out a Gun in a Staff Meeting". Nashville Scene. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

        The article notes that Dave Ramsey, an "evangelical financial guru", filed a lawsuit "late last year against a California real estate agent named Kevin Paffrath who had posted several YouTube videos about Ramsey. ... The videos at the center of it appear to have been taken down, but Paffrath has devoted other videos to criticism of Ramsey." The article notes that the Nashville lawyer Daniel Horwitz was Paffrath's lawyer in the case and had experience with "so-called SLAPP lawsuits".

     4. Dalrymple, Jim, II (2019-03-05). "Popular YouTuber agent facing criminal charges for video antics. Kevin Paffrath was charged with trespassing after storming the office of Grant Cardone in December".
        Inman News. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
        )

        The article notes: "Kevin Paffrath, better known as Meet Kevin on YouTube and Instagram, was charged in February with trespassing and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors. The charges stem from a Dec. 21 incident in which Paffrath, who is based in the Los Angeles area, flew to Miami and showed up at the offices of Grant Cardone ..."

  3. Additional sources:
     1. Martin, Emmie (2021-05-06). "Kevin O'Leary reacts to a couple who earns $6 million a year through YouTube and real estate". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

        The article notes: "O’Leary is impressed with how they handle money as a couple though. ... O’Leary also applauds Kevin getting into YouTube as well as real estate because it gives the couple multiple streams of income.  “With Kevin, I think it’s in his nature to always work and he kind of gets a high from making money,” Lauren says."

     2. Competiello, Christopher (2019-12-24). "'My net worth went up at least $100,000 on each purchase.' A 27 year-old real-estate expert shares how he sniffs out the perfect deal with 'virtually no risk'". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

        The article notes: "At the time, Paffrath was 19 — and he was growing tired of "dead-end" jobs at Jamba Juice and Red Robin. ... Once he acquired his license, insatiable curiosity led Paffrath to search out all aspects of the real-estate business. ... Today, Paffrath's portfolio has a value of just under $6.2 million — and he's only 27-years-old."

     3. Fishman, Scott (2008-09-28). "Explorers on target".
        Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2021-04-09 suggested (help
        )

        The article is trivial coverage about the subject when he was 16 years old. The article does not contribute to notability I am including it for completeness from my research. The article notes: "Kevin Paffrath, 16, competed in Shoot/Don't Shoot and Domestic Crisis Intervention. Paffrath has been on 51 ride-alongs this past year, which he said helped prepare him for the conference."

  Sources after he announced his political campaign on 17 May 2021
  
  
  1. "YouTuber Kevin Paffrath talks about his candidacy for governor". KTXL. 2021-05-23. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

     This is an interview. It contributes very little to notability.

  2. Phinney, Lauren (2021-05-20). "Meet Democrat California Gubernatorial candidate Kevin Paffrath". KUSI-TV. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

     This is an interview. It contributes very little to notability.

  3. Kennedy (2021-05-21). "Kennedy Saves California…Again". Fox News Radio. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

     This is an interview. It contributes very little to notability.

  4. Kennedy (2021-05-19). "YouTuber enters California gubernatorial race". Fox Business. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

     This is an interview and may be the same interview as the previous source. It contributes very little to notability.

  5. Jackson, Jon (2021-05-17). "Kevin Paffrath, 'Meet Kevin' YouTuber, Becomes 26th Candidate to Announce Challenge to Newsom". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

     This article discusses Kevin Paffrath's candidacy and mostly quotes from his press release announcement. It contributes very little to notability.

  6. Ruiz, Michael (2021-05-19). "Newsom challenger calls embattled guv a 'weanie baby,' post briefly removed from Instagram. Kevin Paffrath is a California real estate agent and social media personality known as Meet Kevin". Fox News. Archived from the original on 2021-05-24. Retrieved 2021-05-24.

     This is mostly an interview. It contributes very little to notability.

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

  Cunard (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep based on the coverage in the New York Times, Curbed and the Nashville Post that Empire3131 pointed out earlier. He is marginally notable as a real estate investor and YouTuber. I am taking a look only at the coverage that pre-dates his candidacy because he obviously fails
  WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate with routine campaign announcements and interviews in a race likely to have a massive field of candidates. The references are a shambles, and the article needs a lot of work, and the most important thing is that the article must not be permitted to become a campaign brochure. Many of the people commenting above have been canvassed and have negligible knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The closing administrator will have to discount those comments and give highest priority to the informed, policy based comments, but that's why administrators get paid far more than YouTube influencers, right? Just kidding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't think the Nashville Post is significant - it's just about a lawsuit, and the Curbed article was written before their New Yorker purchase. Ignoring the campaign, I still don't think it's enough: there's a reason why this article was launched to co-incide with the campaign. SportingFlyer T·C 12:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Curbed article was written 5 days after Vox Media's purchase of Curbed was announced. Regardless, I think Curbed has been a reliable source both before and after its acquisition. I agree that the Nashville Post article is marginal. Empire3131 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to Kevin Paffrath and his campaign team since they are following this discussion based on this Twitter post and this YouTube video: Please see Talk:Kevin Paffrath#Photos of Kevin Paffrath: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials (permanent link) regarding how to add photos of Kevin Paffrath to his Wikipedia article. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I believe Cunard's analysis of sources shows notability. If not as a politician, than a YouTuber, I guess. versacespaceleave a message! 11:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a multimillionaire landlord who once extolled the virtues of misleading tenants and vigorously refusing to rent to people with suboptimal credit scores ... I think this might be one of those times when an "influencer" will regret having a Wikipedia page. XOR'easter (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No kidding! Sucks for them! Although they did respond saying it's normal for property managers to have credit criteria and to conceal owner identity. Seems like Wiki should probably provide some sort of clarification there given that the phrasing of the NYT article seems misleading with this context. But that is what they said. I do suppose that's one of the dangers of secondary sources though for people who have wiki's on them. WalterWhite72 (talk)
    • Probably a discussion for the article talk page, as this is not related to whether the article ought to be deleted. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks to be clearly notable, one being a YouTuber doesn't make them less notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I point out the NYT article describes him as "one of dozens" That's good evidence of non notability from a RS. Additionally, we should never be influenced by an external campaign to keep a WP article, for it can be assumed that this shows COI. This applies whether the coverage is positive or negative. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take another look at the New York Times article, DGG. "Dozens" refers to the number of videos uploaded to YouTube daily about real estate, and the word does not apply to Paffrath. The NYT didn't write about those other YouTubers but instead chose to publish ten paragraphs about Paffrath. That's significant coverage. The article in its current form is far different than when it was nominated, because experienced, uninvolved editors have improved it dramatically. My "keep" recommendation has nothing to do with any external campaign. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per indepth coverage in this CNBC article, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/millennial-couple-earns-6-million-dollars-a-year-from-youtube-and-real-estate.html, which, with the lesser mentions, is sufficient for Wikipedia:Notability, and has little to do with running for governor. That can only add to his notability. --GRuban (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Note: GRuban (talk · contribs) has contributed to plenty of unrelated articles over his fifteen years at Wikipedia, and has not been canvassed to come here, but would feel left out if he didn't have small print after his Keep opinion. --GRuban (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project MARTHA

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

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

nn software, multitagged since 2016, only gnomish cosmetic edits singe then Lembit Staan (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The W3 reference doesn't mention the subject. There is a more notable project with the same name in a different area. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Not sure why it has a stand alone article. Kolma8 (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel (band)

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

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

Non-notable band, fail of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 17:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The sources in the article demonstrate notability and pass
  WP:GNG. Andise1 (talk
  )

• Keep has reliable sources reviews in Alternative Press, Pitchfork and The AV Club which are all major music websites not niche at all and all listed at
  WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It fails #1 in
    WP:BAND are satisfied. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleware

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

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

nn software company Lembit Staan (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have barely found anything on a
  WP:COMPANY. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• DeleteDoesn't match notability requirements. Cinadon36 18:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Searches find press releases and some mentions of their Poseidon product in the context of UML tools, but I am not seeing the
  notable. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: non-notable corp. Nothing on WP:BEFORE to indicate notability. Kolma8 (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poseidon for UML

Poseidon for UML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

nn piece of software by a nn compaty. Tagged as unref since 2012 Lembit Staan (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no evidence whatsoever of notability. Could probably be a speedy delete per

wp:A7. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 22:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy Delete: per nom. Essentially a
  WP:2S. Kolma8 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ahmad Wali

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

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

Seems to fail all relevant notability guidelines. Ambassadors aren't automatically notable under

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per the nominator's rationale. There's no coverage really.
  _(talk) 21:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete — Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a GNG fail. Furthermore the relevant SNG isn’t satisfied either. Celestina007 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonmoni Borah

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

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

BLP of a civil servant supported by passing mentions and interviews. Unelected and does not pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This living person involved in various major responsible projects and this article comes under law enforcement. 223.189.177.246 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Involved in various major projects" is not, in and of itself, a notability claim — to be notable for that, it would be necessary to write a substantive article about the significance of his involvement in various major projects, analyzing that work in depth. Just listing roles he's had is not enough to make him notable for those roles per se, and sourcing it to glancing namechecks of his existence in photo captions and news articles about other things is not enough to get him over
  WP:GNG on the sourcing. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to be a lot more substantive, or the sourcing from having to be a lot more about him, than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: The subject is not a politician. He is a public servant at Government of India. Didnt find anything much about the subject in google search, except few passing references. (
  talk) 03:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC))[reply
  ]

• Keep: This person have significant roles and works is Chhattisgarh cadre. 2409:4052:230F:1A31:9444:A147:5219:BE71 (talk)
• Delete. My searches find only
  WP:ILIKEIT than anything else and are thus in my view unconvincing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• delete nonnotable mid-rank functionary. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am surprized it is relisted: there were no valid votes to keep. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unelected civil servants do not meet
  WP:SIGCOV found. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Trivial coverage and fails not only GNG but also NPOl. Missvain (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG, just routine coverage. Darktaste (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tokai On Air

Tokai On Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Youtube prank channel. Likely notable, but the article is largely fancruft, so I believe that

Withdrawn by nominator. Article has been improved in the meantime. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I wrote most of this article based on its Japanese article excluding some obvious fancruft. I am ready to clean the article and look for better information. I am open to any advice. 太西 (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify for now. Would appear to be a reasonable compromise between
  WP:DYNAMITE and keeping article as is. If there are users willing to improve the article, let the draft namespace serve its purpose. Babegriev (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Improvements have been made by rewriting major portions of article to be NPOV. Critical viewpoints added, only essential, major events included in history. If still not good enough for mainspace, I am at my wit's end. 太西 (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 16:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - looks like satisfy
  WP:GNG and has reasonable notability claims. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Cleaned up and looks good to me. Supporting a pass of
  WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing early based on growing early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esra Manya

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

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

Should be deleted as per the general consensus that footballers that don't meet the SNG (

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Source analysis - sources do not address Manya in depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=30&kisiId=1614043			Stats only	✘ No
https://www.trtspor.com.tr/haber/futbol/kadinlar-futbol/sampiyon-1207-antalya-muratpasa-95339.html			Not mentioned at all	✘ No
https://www.sabah.com.tr/akdeniz/2014/05/09/antalyanin-milli-gururu			Routine announcement of U17 call up	✘ No
https://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=341&ftxtID=22825			Not mentioned at all	✘ No
https://www.posta.com.tr/-kadin-milli-futbol-takimi-avrupada-ceyrek-final-pesinde-276399			Mentioned once in a squad list	✘ No
http://www.radikal.com.tr/izmir-haber/futbol-kizlar-17-yas-alti-avrupa-sampiyonasi-1453995/		?	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.sporx.com/17-yas-alti-kiz-futbol-takimimiz-veda-etti-SXHBQ497740SXQ		?	Squad list mention	✘ No
https://www.extratime.com/newsdesk/articles/15371/republic-of-ireland-womens-under-17s-top-group-to-qualify/			Squad list mention	✘ No
https://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=283&ftxtID=25338			Squad list mention	✘ No
https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=29&macId=156918			Just a stats match report	✘ No
https://www.uefa.com/womensunder19/match/2021012--hungary-vs-turkey/?referrer=%2Fwomensunder19%2Fseason%3D2018%2Fmatches%2Fround%3D2000862%2Fmatch%3D2021012%2Findex			No coverage to speak of	✘ No
https://www.uefa.com/womensunder19/match/2021012--hungary-vs-turkey/?referrer=%2Fwomensunder19%2Fseason%3D2018%2Fmatches%2Fround%3D2000862%2Fmatch%3D2021012%2Findex			No coverage to speak of	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable footballer. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VocalIndia (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GooeyMitch (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per detailed source analysis by Spiderone. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2020–21 NBA season#Play-in tournament. Missvain (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 NBA Play-in Tournament

2021 NBA Play-in Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Overlap; already in 2021 NBA playoffs article. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 14:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 14:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2021 NBA playoffs#Play-in Tournament. No need for duplication of coverage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2021 NBA playoffs#Play-in Tournament. As a part of the NBA playoffs, this tournament doesn't need its own article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As sources have clarified that the play in tournament is not part of the playoffs, Redirect to
    2020-21 NBA season#Play-in tournament. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Redirect to
  chatter) 20:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The play-in tournament isn't the playoffs. Two teams who play in the tournament enter the draft lottery. --
  (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The playoffs start on May 22 and this is not part of the playoffs. Thus, there's no need to merge them. --LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 21:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2021 NBA playoffs#Play-in Tournament. Duplicate of the 2021 NBA playoffs article. --Dannyphx (user talk) 01:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Play-in games don't count for playoff stats, so the play-in details should ideally be at the existing 2020–21 NBA_season#Play-in tournament, not in the playoff article, if this page is not kept.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  talk) 13:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  SocietyBox (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep These are separate from the playoffs. At the very least, it should be a redirect--Rockchalk717 05:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2020–21 NBA season#Play-in tournament. A mere six games does not merit a standalone article. Even the past playoffs did not get a dedicated article for each round. Play-in games are technically not part of the regular season or playoffs,[13] precluding a redirect to 2021 NBA playoffs.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2020–21 NBA season#Play-in tournament per above. --DragonFederal (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2020–21 NBA season#Play-in tournament per above above. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 11:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Stats from the Playin tournament do not count for the regular season or the playoffs. Should it really be redirected to either?
  talk) 12:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    Mannysoloway: 2020–21 NBA season covers the entire season as a whole (offseason, preseason, regular season, and postseason), so not just the regular season. Seems like an appropriate place for a section to cover a pre-postseason set of games. Yosemiter (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @
      talk) 12:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep the NBA is the authority on this matter, and it officially does not consider the play-in games as part of the regular season or playoffs; so it should have its own article rather than redirect/merge with the season or playoffs article.Frank Anchor^Talk 13:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  2020–21 NBA season is for the whole season. It's not named the 2020–21 NBA regular season.—Bagumba (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your clarification. I still support having the separate article. The closest comparison I can think of across other sports is tiebreaker games in MLB (though those are "officially" part of MLB's regular season). Each of these games has its own article. Frank Anchor^Talk 16:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The closest would be qualification games for a world cup, like

  SocietyBox (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment A relevant point from the Wikipedia:Notability guideline: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.—Bagumba (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2020–21 NBA season#Play-in tournament per Sabbatino and Bagumba. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for those in favor of merging: How would this be merged? Just the brackets? With {{basketballbox}} but without per game stat leaders? With per game stat leaders? What about prose? Context: In the 2018–19 NBA season article (the last 82-game regular season before the pandemic), the playoffs are presented as a simple bracket and nothing else. In the 2019–20 NBA season, the play-in game (happened because it triggered a set of conditions set by the league; this year it happened whatever happened in the regular season), it is not presented (this is probably oversight), and the playoffs are again presented just as a bracket. Some playoff sections from earlier seasons may have prose; I haven't checked. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Has anyone mentioned merge? If the redirect target ends up being 2020–21 NBA season#Play-in tournament, we would basically move the contents of 2021_NBA_playoffs#Play-in_Tournament, pretty much a duplicate of this page, over to that general season page.—Bagumba (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's redirected to 2020–21 NBA season#Play-in tournament, it'll be an interesting format to see {{basketballbox}}es, something that's usually seen in the playoffs article in the overall season page, that is if indeed those will be merged into the article, and not just the brackets.

  If it's redirected to 2021 NBA playoffs#Play-in_Tournament, it'll be interesting to see six games in there that are not in the playoffs. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2020–21 NBA regular season this could fit into a section in the main season article without any trouble. NapHit (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep: The NBA has stated these games do not fit in either the regular season or the playoffs. These games and their stats are in their own place. This has been reported by multiple outlets (Athletic (Paywall), ESPN Reporter). Someone has pointed out though that the play-in stats are being kept on the NBA's website under the regular season. If these games are separate from the regular season and the playoffs stat wise, it wouldn't make sense to FULLY merge it into either the season or playoff pages. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  2020–21 NBA season covers the entire season, including play-in and playoffs. It's not named the 2020–21 NBA regular season.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2021 NBA playoffs#Play-in Tournament. Does not need an own article. Kante4 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2020–21 NBA season#Play-in tournament. Everything is clear and well explained. --IndexAccount (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The NBA is clear that the play-in is before and not part of its playoffs: Following the Play-In Tournament, the NBA Playoffs will commence ...[14]—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2020–21 NBA season#Play-in tournament per above arguments. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 18:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2020–21 NBA season#Play-in tournament, per Bagumba's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2020–21 NBA season#Play-in tournament or 2021 NBA playoffs, it rather makes sense to keep it in one article instead of having two pages having the same info as the other. Swagging (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Shabpareh

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

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

Might be missing out on non-English sources for

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 13:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, significant coverage can be found here,^[1] and on BBC News. There are also some more trivial mentions.^[2][3]