Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 30

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< May 29 May 31 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Commonwealth of Independent States Cup squads

2013 Commonwealth of Independent States Cup squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of squads for a FIFA sanctioned U-21 tournament sourced only to the competition website. I don't mind squad lists for major sanctioned tournaments, but this is too specific/fails

WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

LiquidHub

LiquidHub (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 business. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Spam for just another corporation. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Searches find announcement-based coverage of financial deals, culminating in the February 2018 takeover of the firm, but these fall under trivial coverage at
    notability. The Capgemini page does not mention this acquisition; a partial merge and redirect may be undue attention to this particular takeover and rebrand. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Capgemini#History. I've added and sourced a reference there. Otherwise agree that standalone sourcing is insufficient. czar 21:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Middleton Fox

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

And yet another one of several pages concerning the now-deleted

WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG after my research and delete per
    WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Missvain (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Privateering Tour

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

Does not appear to meet

WP:NTOUR. Contested redirect. – bradv🍁 14:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possibly as redirect): I would like to add that the previous situation was that the article was redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Knopfler; this seems less harmful as completely deleting it, as it does give future editors the sought for sustained opportunity to improve it, if necessary. 83.85.103.18 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting to Mark Knopfler is a perfectly reasonable solution, imo. – bradv🍁 14:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Striking out third attempt by IP address to vote. Aspects (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Donington Run

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

One-off 10k run which fails

WP:NEVENT. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Being bold and closing this one early based on

WP:SNOW. Missvain (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Soludo Marcel

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

Blatant UPE article on a very non notable actor and model who fails to satisfy any criterion from

WP:NACTOR. A before search literally turns up nothing of substance. Furthermore, they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a major GNG fail as well. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not fail
    AfD. [reply
    ]
@
WP:NMODEL and show us how they satisfy it. Furthermore you are welcome to bring to this AFD, reliable sources that show the subject of the article satisfies our general notability criteria for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete - I have been unable to locate any reliable sources to support notability. Of the four sources listed in the article:
  • The first source is a model agency which brings back a 404 error. The main website does not even mention Soludo Marcel.
  • The second source is a commercial perfume sales site with no mention of Soludo Marcel.
  • The third source for Vogue Italy does not even mention him.
  • The last source is a commercial wedding directory site which does not mention him.
This article has not established notability. Moreover, the article's creator added a personal photo of Soludo Marcel. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bias "Delete" comment made another user -
      hounding and his comment should not count to this vote. There have been too many incidents in the past where this user involved himself/herself in my edits without providing explanations of how they landed on pages I've edited, other than looking my edit history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horizonlove (talk • contribs
      )
Horizonlove and I have not edited the same article in over a year, and the last time we communicated on a talk page was in 2017. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did not find this page other than looking my edit history as you have always done in the past. And it is easy for our last interaction to have been a year (if it has been a year) as I stopped editing for a period of months. But I have no doubt that you have been keeping an eye on edit history since I last encounter. So again, the votes of other participating users should be accepted, but Magnolia677 should not count. He is too obsessed with me for whatever reason. Horizonlove (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The first link is now a dead link but the website does mention him on their roster. The second site provides proof the model was part of that campaign (in this case "Essenza"). The third site [again] provided proof that this model walked in that fashion show and for the brand designer. The last site names models at the bottom of the page. Horizonlove (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I very carefully checked the four sources that Magnolia677 mentioned. The name "Soludo Marcel" is not mentioned in any of these sources. Not once.--- Possibly (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Possibly. Worse, the male model in the Love Weddings NG shoot is named as Marc Steel, a different person, as far as I can tell. Laplorfill (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG fail. This also appears to be possible promotion; the photo description given by Horizonlove is "A photo taken during a photoshoot session with Soludo Marcel in which the photographer licensed the photo to me.".--- Possibly (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While some sources on the current article are problematic, and the article requires clean-up, there do appear to be a number of Arabic language sources available, as Uses x notes. In fact, there is also a more developed biography on Arabic Wikipedia for review. I JethroBT drop me a line 03:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hanadi Alkandari

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

Fails

WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
a Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 20:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the face of some epic overlinking, she has had multiple significant roles in Gulf TV shows and the Arabic coverage is significant, with supporting English coverage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appreciate, if someone can share best 3 sources, show name & role, instead of just false and random claims. Also, I can see that the page is been spammed by blogs links, a perfect example of
    Citation Overkill to confuse editors. Sonofstar (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She doesn't seem notable in the Anglosphere, but visiting the references on Google Translate or just doing a simple search of her name shows she's notable in Arabic speaking countries, with in-depth articles about her on major news sites (not just blogs). Citation overkill isn't a reason to delete the page, as the article isn't defamatory - either ignore it and leave it to someone else, or check the references and remove the irrelevant ones. Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find the sources on the link you share. Having sources at some corner of the world will not help. Please share here. Sonofstar (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Uses x. Make sure you ping folks Sonofstar - not everyone watches pages or checks up on AfDs after they comment. Missvain (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:GNG (from putting the citations through Google Translate) are from aljarida.com ([7] has an in depth interview). At a glance [25] and [26] (which appears to be a TV interview as well) also establish that as they go in detail about her. From checking the social media accounts linked on the page they seem to be notable news sites in Arabic speaking countries. That's as of this revision for if those change. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NACTOR. Sonofstar (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vlastimil Beránek

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

Fails

WP:NARTIST. non notable artist Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read 'Fails WP:NARTIST' - I would have thought the artist qualifies at least under criteria #4 based on the citations contained in the original article, but I guess questions of significance and notability are extremely subjective. I can only hope the entry is not deleted, and will work on the suggestions made in the Teahouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackpebblemedia (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are three sources one of which is his own website, which criteria do you think he passes (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I'm not seeing it? Theroadislong (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -
WP:NARTIST. Does that help to clear things up why criteria #4 of NARTIST does not apply? Netherzone (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Since you mentioned your long-time interest in glass art, perhaps you would be interested in improving commenting on AfD for Jan Frydrych? Anton.bersh (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After doing a BEFORE search, I was unable to find anything to substantiate the notability of this artist. Does not meet
    WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment - Blackpebblemedia has been blocked until doing a name change. Even after that remedied, prohibited from editing the draft directly, for COI, but may be able to identify refs on the Talk page of the article that establish notability. Or not. David notMD (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of the coverage mentioned is from Yachting magazines. At first I assumed it is because he was selling work to people with superyachts. While this seems to be true, the art, or commissioned work, is flowing through a company called Crystal Caviar, as described here. We don't have any categories in
    WP:SPAM: an advertisement for the Crystal Caviar company masquerading as an article. "--- Possibly (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

- For the record, it wasn't masquerading as anything - it was always transparent, factual, accurate - and completely open to being edited in an open forum, exactly as described by Anton down below. More of that kind of altruistic approach wouldn't be too much to ask, surely.

The user blackpebblemedia has also declared on their talk page that they were editing this page as a favor to the artist. A few months before that another PR-sounding account was at it: Paulbarronmedia. I don't think I have ever seen two PR companies editing an article on an artist.--- Possibly (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- paulbarronmedia is neither a PR company, nor a company of any kind whatsoever. It's an email address for one of the operators of Black Pebble Media. The comment above is false and misleading. No need for it, Poss. Peace out.

And just to nail down the idea that his is a purely promotional article, the editor who created it Kristýna WIKI also created Jaroslav Prošek (since deleted) and Jan Frydrych. Along with Vlastimil Beránek, they are all artists represented by "Crystal Caviar".--- Possibly (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mentioned Jan Frydrych, please note that it was recently nominated for deletion. Please take a second to comment there if you are interested. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and
    WP:TNT. @Blackpebblemedia: if you are interested, I can help out with a draft by reviewing it and fixing the writing style (but not finding sources because I do not have access to offline media which could contain relevant sources). But you would need to find sources first because currently there is simply not enough to build an article with. Anton.bersh (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Thanks, Anton - that would be really appreciated. This is exactly the type of guidance we were first hoping for / expecting when originally submitting. What's the next step?— 2603:8001:a400:4b:f5ae:d2d6:d406:e8d6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

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

The result was merge to Brecknell Willis. Missvain (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brecknell Willis high speed pantograph

Brecknell Willis high speed pantograph (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 does not cite any reliable sources dudhhrContribs 22:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. dudhhrContribs 22:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are created by the same company and also fail GNG:

Brecknell Willis high reach pantograph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Brecknell Willis low height pantograph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

dudhhrContribs 22:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The external link actually verifies much of the high speed pantograph article so it's not accurate to say it's unsourced, just lacking in inline references. There is a lot of information out there about the topic of pantographs, and this is one of, if not the, most notable at least in the UK (my knowledge on the subject doesn't extend further afield), but most of it is in offline sources AFAIK. Google books has lots of hits but as they're all snippet view I can't use them to reference the article. It's not surprising to me that a simple web-search for a very specialised subject that was developed in the pre-internet era and is essentially little-changed since then would appear to not be notable, but google hits are not the whole story. The other two are not as notable as the high speed panto but are nonetheless encyclopaedic. At least until someone with access to the sources significantly expands the articles they would be best covered together, hence my recommending a merge. Either a single article about Brecknell Willis's pantographs, the Brecknell Willis company (although I've not looked into how notable they are outside of this topic) or types of pantographs more generally. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. How can something that "is the mainstay within the UK railway system" and has "been exported across the world" fail GNG?!? As Thryduulf noted, it merely needs better referencing (likely to be found in old, obscure speciality trade magazines). AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all with Brecknell Willis and then create a short section on said pantographs. Nightfury 08:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per

(non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Angizeh (album)

Angizeh (album) (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 recording failing

WP:NALBUM. Sources are just download/purchase links Xclusivzik (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Supplied sources are simply track listings and likely not independent of the subject. I can't find any in my search, but that could be because they do not appear in my English-language search. No claim to notability and it's unclear if the work is remarkable in its genre as the Persian-language article appears to be virtually identical to this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect the page to the artist's article. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    alternatives to deletion and the primary rapper on this album does have his own article. (Which by the way raises a lot of its own notability issues, but that's another process.) Otherwise everyone above is correct about how this album received none of the notice necessary for an article of its own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by someone else. Geschichte (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naveed Ahamad Mir

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

Completely non-notable. Fails

WP:GNG and appears to be written by the subject himself. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Being

WP:SNOW. Missvain (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Shivam Bangwal

Shivam Bangwal (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 social media digital marketer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No SIGCOV, fails the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promo content only. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Those “sources” are hilarious. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned by others No SIGCOV, fails the GNG. defcon5 (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deffinitelly not notable, at least not in English. (I have no idea how a 21 year old digital marketer can be notable.) Page creator, User:Wanderer kanishk, also contributed to a number of other articles which seem promotional. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh, could have been speedy too! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatantly and utterly non-notable vanity piece. Probably needs salting, too, as it keeps cropping up. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 15:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1978–79 London Spartan League

1978–79 London Spartan League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not pass

WP:GNG, I fail to see how these can ever pass GNG. The level of football was so low, there maybe one or two routine citations around. But there is nothing in-depth to support articles of this nature. Govvy (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Also felt that 1985–86 South Midlands League failed GNG, and still does fail GNG was kept on a whim, individual season pages for these lower leagues are not notable. Govvy (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the league have received newspaper coverage that year? That's the real question here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Largely on a procedural basis. Two of the three AfDs started by the nominator for leagues at the same level were kept following discussions in March (1, 2). As pointed out last time (and not just by me), a better approach would be to have a centralised discussion on whether league season articles at this level are wanted or not. AfDing individual seasons is a seriously unhelpful approach that creates inconsistency on what we have and do not have articles on (as there are hundreds of articles on league seasons at this level), and I would ask the nominator to stop doing this. Also, I don't have access to newspaper archives for this era, but modern coverage of leagues at this level does pass GNG so I would be surprised if it didn't 40-50 years ago. Number 57 09:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs improving, but I can easily find weekly results (for both divisions!) in national publications such as The Observer for 1978/1979 and fixture lists in The Guardian, along with dozens of hits from a half-dozen papers in the British Newspaper Archive from August 1977 to June 1978 (mostly articles than results). I expect searching for the 32 individual teams, would yield some decent articles as well. I can see that it's unlikely that any of the individual teams are worthy of seasons articles, but there's more than enough information out there decades later to write seasons articles for the entire league structure. And how can we have no problems with articles like 2019–20 Spartan South Midlands Football League and not with this? Or are only 21st century league seasons notable at this level? Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Question @Nfitz: How are results in-depth? I can find results for multiple different football online, from under-16s locally to my playing days as a non-league amateur. You haven't provided an sources to your conclusion for keeping. A football result or a group of them is not grounds to keep an article or contribute towards GNG. You really would have to have something far more. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure as to whether the more recent seasons at this level are notable enough to pass GNG. There needs to be a wider discussion, though. Either they all go or they all stay. It wouldn't make sense to delete some but then let others be kept. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: The results alone don't quite establish notability, even if they are in a national (if not international, easy enough to find The Observer on a good newsstand here on the other side of the ocean, to this day on a Sunday afternoon ... well, to a day in March 2020, which is the last time I went in a newsagent). I don't currently have access to the British Newspaper Archive so I can't provide, and can only see snippets, that anyone can see in a search. This shouldn't be a surprise - we can find the occasional good article about a team's season for teams currently playing at that level, and seasons articles for those leagues are ubiquitous. Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search on a couple of the teams in the league for recent results and many of their games do get covered, it's not an every game has a journo type situation but a journo might cover one of the local teams on a given weekend and list results for the remainder. I'd assume Step 9 would be okay for a tables article based on that. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails GNG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still frustrated nobody's going to the newspapers to actually check to see if this passes GNG or not. Nfitz Any examples of actual articles? SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The best place for such references is the British Newspaper Archive - and my preliminary search looked positive, but I don't have access. Perhaps someone with access can look? I'll try and dig in other sources. Nfitz (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just did a BNA search myself and there certainly looks to be coverage, if not of the league, of teams in the league. A newspapers.com search, which only has a few English newspapers, brought up mostly lists of results in agate, but also small blurbs of team news. It looks like the league's coverage was mostly fixture lists and results in larger papers and tabloids, and was covered significantly by papers in Harrow and Buckinghamshire. But I also can't tell because I also don't have BNA access, but it's clear from just the results there's a decent chance there is in depth reporting of the league. SportingFlyer T·C 14:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TWL or the shared resources portal
could assist?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 20:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Sporting Flyer - I took a deep dive in several databases, but nothing seems to have the same newspaper coverage as the BNA, other than newspaper archive in Find My Past (which as far as I can see is just a copy of BNA) - but perhaps there's someone around who has access to that. I don't think that either are available through
WP:TWL, User:Go Phightins! - just Newspapers.com, which I can access through TWL - but that seems to have little in-depth British coverage from that time period, other than 1 or 2 of the big national papers - it's great for 1940s USA soccer - less so for 1970s UK soccer. Nfitz (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The limited access I have all I see are results, which is what I saw last time I checked, I still don't see how you can in-depth season pages. I can see a page on the league passing GNG, but not season pages. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: What sort of coverage do you think is required for a season page? SportingFlyer T·C 16:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More than just results, actual match reports, it could have been covered quite well, but I don't know that, from what I've seen is why I have nominated. I don't really see the depth needed for these articles. You could also argue that a lot of these season articles at this lower level is just a load of
WP:NOSTATS articles that should be deleted! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
There's clearly newspaper coverage for at least two teams in the league including Bracknell Town, though the year search doesn't line up precisely with the season. I still think the
WP:NOTSTATS argument needs to be made centrally before being taken to AfD. I agree the pure stats dump from nonleaguematters isn't excellent, but we've also kept really dumb US College team seasons sourced only to a reference website before since those seasons were and/or may have been covered in local papers. Considering the consensus for these has been on the side of keeping in the past such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1984–85 South Midlands League and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985–86 South Midlands League, I'd prefer if there was a broader consensus before these start getting deleted piecemeal. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Fails
    WP:SIGCOV. We can’t evaluate sources that are not produced, and lack of evidence is simply that, lack of evidence. It’s on the onus of the keep voters to provide evidence of significant coverage, and speculations on existing sources is not convincing.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That’s ridiculous. You are claiming sources hypothetically exist but you don’t know they exist or you would produce them here. How can we argue for or against evidence we can’t see. This is a logical fallacy. You must produce them, or in AFD terms they aren’t real.4meter4 (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We know sources exist from at least a few papers from a search from the British newspaper archive. We just can't access those articles directly. SportingFlyer T·C 13:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that anyone can see the long list of articles, without seeing the contents, in the BNA - calling them "hypothetical" is surely disingenuous! It's not their existence that are hypothetical, it's the full contents, other than a handful of words in a preview, that is the issue. It's clear from what you can see, that these are written articles, rather than just league tables. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject doesn't pass
    WP:SPORTSEVENT (in reply to the above discussion about inaccessible texts, I think that's it's more likely than not that they are based on not more than routine coverage of each game; I disagree that there's a general onus on the keep !voters to produce evidence of significant coverage, but there as onus on the side that claims a concrete example of coverage is significant, to back that assertion up with something, so that it isn't completely speculative). I disagree with the procedural critique outlined by Number 57. When there is a lack of a specific procedure, the more general procedure that is in effect needs to be used, it's a robust, transparent, and inclusive way of doing things. And if the results are a little unsatisfactory for the time being, that just means that we know why a new tool of process needs to be made, but discussions can't be based on this speculative future tool, in anticipation. Individual AfDs are more than fine. Edit: those who !vote delete based on their perceived need for a centralized discussion simply need to start that centralized discussion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herve Damas

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Never played in an NFL game, according to NFL.com and Pro-Football Reference. Penale52 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV IMO. That said, GNG requires such coverage in multiple reliable sources. Unless additional sources are brought forward, this does still appear to be a GNG fail. Cbl62 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian J Smith

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

The "yahoo" reference is a paid advertisement placed by VIP Media Group as can be seen at the bottom. The IMDB link is empty. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slayy Point

Slayy Point (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 Youtube channel, Just having coverage of one event related to fund raise. Fails

WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For Your kind information, he is the creator of an India wide meme trend Binod. Moreover, they also have hosted the red carpet event at YouTube fanfest and also participated in Youtube fanfest 2020. Jogesh 69 (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico Cup

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

A completely unreferenced article about a youth tournament. Fails

WP:GNG, cannot even confirm it's real. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas La Monaca

Nicholas La Monaca (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 lower league Italian goalkeeper, fails

WP:GNG, possibly an autobio or written by someone close to the subject. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Labour Party (UK). Missvain (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire and the Humber Labour Party

Yorkshire and the Humber Labour 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)

Non-notable regional branch of the Labour Party. No independent source coverage exists, and it is unclear what the article is for, except to list some unsourced election results. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Labour Party (UK) as ATD, otherwise delete. Mccapra (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - seems fair. I do not think it is notable enough to have an article in itself as generally regional organisations of national parties in non-devolved areas are not notable. Dunarc (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change. Missvain (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not seem to meet the

talk) 16:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Redirect to the "Surveys" article Scientific papers are relatively high result on google and other sites, and more than 200 pageviews in the last month seem to suggest its marginally useful. Sadads (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 days ago this article was rubbish. Now one could keep it. But it was quite some work. --Hg6996 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as suggested above as
    Surveys of scientists' views on climate change is not very long. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
My opinion: good idea! --Hg6996 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / redirect as above (depending on whether the additional material is considered worth adding). I actually think that this topic has received enough coverage to pass
    WP:GNG and that a standalone would thus be okay by the letter of the law, but I can't see any benefit for the reader from having it spun off like that. The paper is much better treated in context, as a subsection. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Redirect should be the best idea, as other authors have already stated. Andol (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Kudusay

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

Contested prod. Prod was contested, incorrectly, because editor thought I prodded it due to the fact the subject was from South Sudan. In fact, the only thing I stated in the prod was notability was not established. The same editor removed a speedy because he says touring in another country indicates notability. I see nothing in this article to show he toured in another country and I would argue that if a musician lives within a short distance of another country, say in Seattle, it would be easier for him to perform in Vancouver than Miami as far as travel time and so on. So the unreferenced comment about touring in other countries, IMHO, means nothing. As the article is written right now, the subject is not notable. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In conducting a
    WP:GNG. One can question the reason for the nomination if they want but I focused on the subject of the article which is really what is important. It does not matter how many countries the subject toured in. It does not matter how the article is written either. AfD is not article clean-up. It really doesn't matter what sources are or are not provided in the article so long as they exist but they have to exist and must be verifiable. If someone can provide three independent and reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage then I will re-evaluate my assessment. --ARoseWolf 17:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Can be found at Draft:List of best-selling Latin albums. Missvain (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling Latin albums

List of best-selling Latin albums (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 also nominating the following related page:

List of best-selling Latin music artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am proposing that these article be deleted for several reasons:

1) As mentioned in the maintenance tag, there are questionable sources being used. More importantly, there's the lack of sources from certification authorities which brings up my next point...

2) The lack of online certification databases in Latin America. The only countries with certification databases are Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico and even then they are incomplete. Mexico's certification database only goes back to 1999 while Argentina's certification database stops at 2011. At one point, Uruguay had an online database, but only really briefly (from 1999-2002). Without a comprehensive database from Latin America, there's not much to go on sales from Spanish-speaking countries. The only realistic way of getting sales from Latin America is by IFPI Latin America, which is far as I can tell, do not provide it.

3) Then there's the question what qualifies as a "Latin album" on this list. There isn't an international organization that defines makes an album "Latin" for album sales. Contrast that with the list that I worked on

Latin Recording Academy
which is an international organization that defines Latin music as music sung in Spanish and Portuguese, but they do not deal with album sales. Which leads to another problem I have this article...

4) It also happens to lists albums by artists who happened to be of Hispanic/Latine heritage. This goes in tangent with my third point, but without a reliable source on whether these should also qualify as Latin albums, it completely goes against

original research. Otherwise, are we also going to list albums by artists who also happen to be of Hispanic/Latine heritage like Christina Aguilera, Cardi B, and Melanie Martinez? Granted, Aguilera did release one Latin album (Mi Reflejo
), but that's just one album and it would be odd to include her other albums since she happens of Ecuadorian on her father's side.

These points are also why I support deleting list of best-selling Latin music artists as well since that list doesn't source what makes an artist "Latin". Unless IFPI Latin America suddenly lists the best-selling albums, I can't support this article's existence like with the Latin albums in the US since the article only lists one source for album and none from certifying bodies. Erick (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You make really good points across this. However, I have to point out that most of the sources are reliable. For the second point, I'm on board with you, but there are other sources like the ones in the articles, you don't need online certifications databases if you have Billboard, Antena 3, MTV ad various Spanish outlets claiming the sales. I think the biggest issue here is point 4. There are artists like Enrique Iglesias and Shakira that have released albums in both languages and even in "spanglish". The examples you pointed out are not the best, Cardi B and Melanie Martinez, despite their heritage don't sing in Spanish besides a few words in a couple of songs. I guess the point made for Christina Aguilera is better, but I would be looking for artists like the ones I previously mentioned. Nevertheless, if we include these artists the sales of those "English" albums are also going to be included. Unless those artists are removed, but if they are removed then it would be an inaccurate list. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify both lists. Per
    WP:LSC, lists need to have a selection criteria which is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. These lists do not have such criteria, so I propose to take them offline, discuss the criteria and after consensus is achieved, put them back online. At the same time, address the lack or unreliability of sources, specifically the "music genre" column should be removed.--Muhandes (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Muhandes, MarioSoulTruthFan You both bring up good points. In the event the article gets draftify, I some ideas on how to incorporate a complete inclusiveness of Latin albums by noting how sources differ on their definition of Latin music by either language or genre (which I can back up with a source). The ideal list would Latin albums that include both by language (Spanish or Portuguese) and/or genre (Latin or one of its subgenres). I have sources that can back up Portuguese-language albums to be included in addition to Spanish-language albums. For the genre, the sources should explicitly say that the album is Latin or any of its subgenres like Latin pop, tropical urban, or Regional Mexican, but not "Latin-influenced". This would include not only English-language albums that explicitly stated to be "Latin" by music journalists, but also instrumental Latin albums as well. Basically the list will have sources that several organizations use language while music journalists use genres so that Latin albums can be included in either criteria. I also want to base it on List of best-selling albums (with a lower threshold of course) and using the certified copies part (the RIAA's Latin certifications would come really handy in this). What do you two think of this proposal? Erick (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude: Looks fine. BTW, Ibero-America also applies as a term for music, culture or politics with both Spanish and Portuguese sphere if "Latin" word is such a problematic one. Perhaps those bilingual (English/Spanish) releases such as Sale el Sol or Jon Secada need to be lumped in another section within the list. I also agreed with you about issues with sources because many of them are just questionable. There is even a source from a forum (Foro Univisión) and some or all releases have inflated sales as well. Using certifications column will be helpful but we could also have two figures such as List of best-selling music artists. And finally (isn't a big deal for me), we can have another section with releases recorded in Spanish/Portuguese by non-"Latinos" such as many releases that fit the figure for inclusion such as many by Laura Pausini, Mi Reflejo by Christina Aguilera etc because among other things, they (those releases) have also received the tag "Latin music". Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apoxyomenus, Thanks for your input. Since the article is called "best-selling Latin albums", not "best-selling albums by Latin artists", I don't think a separate section is needed for nationality for non Latine artists and it's fine to include "Mi Reflejo". In fact, I am against including a nationality section at all. I was just going to mention Laura Pausini as well because a lot of Italian pop artists in the 90s and 00s released Spanish-language versions of their hits which became a success in Spanish-speaking markets. That's why I think only the Spanish/Portuguese versions of those albums should count. I mention "predominately" in the sandbox, because music industry tends to use "51% or more" in Spanish/Portuguese as a threshold, meaning the whole album doesn't have to be entirely sung in either language. In the case of Sale el Sol, it is mostly sung in Spanish which is why it ranked on Billboard's Latin Albums chart, whereas Jon Secada's self-titled mostly sung in English and is why it didn't rank on the same chart. EDIT: Changed "predominantly" to"mostly", what do you think? Also the list would also include instrumental Latin albums as well like a Latin jazz album.. Erick (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magiciandude I like what you did with your sandbox. Don't include artists' columns as that gets back to the same problem I pointed out. Once you get all the sources you ned. You can replaced it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • MarioSoulTruthFan, Thanks! For the artists part, my proposal is that the album, not the artist, should be considered "Latin" either by language (Spanish or Portuguese per sources) or genre-wise (considered to be "Latin" by music journalists for non Spanish/Portuguese albums). That way, an album can be listed for either reason. I want to be as inclusive as I can for the list within reason. Erick (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erick I agree that combining both articles together will make it better instead of just deleting them both. I also think that using your sandbox will make it easier for us and give enough time to find reliable sources to properly make edits. I will contribute to the article when I have time. Thanks! FanDePopLatino (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sripada Ramachandra Rao

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

The subject is a filmmaker. However, only one of their work,

WP:NDIRECTOR
.

WP:COI but they removed the tag without any explanation. Ab207 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The following is the source assessment of all the 13 citations in the article. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Ab207
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
TOI Yes ~
WP:TOI
; Major newspaper 		No Only name and image ✘ No
Bookmyshow Yes No Online ticket booking site No Brief profile ✘ No
Moviebuff ? User generated No Date basesite No Passing mention ✘ No
Ragalahari No Press release No
Self published website
 No Passing mention ✘ No
Sakshi No Press release Yes Major newspaper No Passing mention ✘ No
Filmibeat Yes No Database site No Passing mention ✘ No
Sulekha ? User generated No Database site No Passing mention ✘ No
Filmibeat Yes No Database site No Passing mention ✘ No
TOI No Press release ~
WP:TOI
 No Passing mention ✘ No
Indiancinemagallery ? No
Self published website
 No Passing mention ✘ No
Ragalahari ? No
Self published website
 No Passing mention ✘ No
Youtube ? No Making video No Making video ✘ No
Subject's website No Paper clippings of press releases;
published around the same date (1 April 2018) 		Yes All are major newspapers No Passing mention ✘ 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}}.
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. Per User:Superastig. Missvain (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DWHQ

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet

WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Rationale of nominator is without basis in policy. Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geliyoo

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

The page is already live on Turkish Wikipedia and the links are in Turkish on English Wikipedia. It does not match the notability criteria. Yucksy (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a site for conflict of interest. Yucksy asked for the page to be deleted. However, you cannot delete a company, institution or organization that has been the subject of many independent sources. I think there is a conflict of interest in this work. The page must remain. It does not violate the Wikipedia rules. It seems that the Turkish page has remained stable since 2013. Considering that a Turkish company has an English page and has a stable version, THE PAGE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY STAY. Do not delete the page.[15] [16] It also reinforces the notion that Yucksy is doing this job for profit, right after the news of the company executive comes out. The page has existed for years, and a few days after the news came out, Yucksy requested to be deleted. CyberBlockchain (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the reason given to delete is vague at best, the nominator doesn't really say why it doesn't meet the criteria. I think the company has been the subject of enough independent and reliable sources to warrant notability.
    ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 17:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Artus

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

Massively over the top promotional lovefest for non

go and allow someone independent to start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like pretty blatant paid or COI editing, fails
    WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having grown up in Watford and lived for the past 27 years overseas, it was a delight to see the good old Watford Observer being quoted as a source. Not sure that confers notability, though... Other sources are barely better. Personally, I preferred the story about the lizard rescued after getting stuck under pub decking but that's probably another Ashley Artus... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Nagar

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

Failing the notability criteria. No reliable refrences. PangolinPedia 11:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 11:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of playing significant roles (other than a single episode on a TV show) to meet
    WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KiwiMan) and no !votes for deletion are otherwise present, so procedurally closing at this time. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion by a user in good standing. North America1000 11:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Gillespie

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

This article is just all gossip and promotion. Come on Wikipedia. Check the sources. KiwiMan (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI. Schwede66 17:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and improve obvious bad-faith nomination by blocked sockpuppet, already passes
    WP:RS for her in GNews. Wikishovel (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2017 (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. Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Gillespie

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

So I wasnt able to create the 2nd AfD link here - but these pieces that this article is sourced too are all written by the company she works for. Please check but I dont believe this radio host is notable. All paid for press releases and articles. DominikRuben (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 19:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Jay-Jay Feeney

Jay-Jay Feeney (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 sorry but I do believe that sources here are just puff pieces. Should be relooked at. Looks like it is written by the subject themselves.

  • Update - I am looking through this article. The previous sources are from the subjects twitter and published book. They are not reliable sources. The rest of the sources that are still there are just from news outlets, similar to a tabloid. So where does all the rest of the information come from. It seems to be written by the subject themselves or an agent. But it's not a notable article unless someone can prove me wrong. DominikRuben (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moot. Closed without action because the nominator and sole participant has been blocked as a sock. Can be renominated by good-faith editors. Sandstein 06:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Jessop

Scott Jessop (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 YouTuber. Puff pieces. Maybe it needs to be rewritten. DominikRuben (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rizayev Jasur Alimdjanovich

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

Previously deleted and declined multiple times. Does not pass

WP:NACADEMIC GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russian-related deletion discussions. Dr. Universe (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prior deletion was purely procedural, but he fails
    WP:ANYBIO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The word 'rector' can mean different things in different countires. If in this case it's the highest position in the university, then he passes NPROF 6 and should be kept. Eccekevin (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: I'm curious how you see that it's been deleted in the past? Do you just remember the AfD discussion? Or is there a way to see that it was deleted in the past? Dr. Universe (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr. Universe, jumping in here... it was deleted through Prod, not AfD, and was purely procedural since it was a redirect to a non-existent page. You can check that on the article where it says "prev dels" at the top next to the page title. Here's the link. Onel5969 TT me 21:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks User:onel5969. The link to the deletion log was useful. I cannot see where it says "prev dels" on the article next to the page title though. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dr. Universe, hmmm... I think that might be something you need to "turn on". Not sure which of the java scripts on my preferences does it. Or it might be one of the other boxes you check off. Not sure, and just browsed through to see if anything popped out at me. It didn't unfortunately. You might ask over at the Teahouse if you're interested in it. Onel5969 TT me 21:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for dropping in, Onel5969! Dr. Universe it's a doohickey called XFD Closer, which you can find in your Preferences under 'gadgets'. It adds a bunch of useful thingies, including 'logs', which lets you see previous deletions and other page actions. It also lets you close AfDs etc, but needs to be used with caution/within guidelines for closing. Like Twinkle, it's actually easy to access for such a powerful red button!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @
          Draft:Jasur Alimdjanovich Rizayev. The redirects left over from the move were deleted but that's just a technical speedy deletion, not even a prod. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • @David Eppstein: I agree and hope my comments weren't construed as encouragement for anyone to start closing things - "but needs to be used with caution/within guidelines for closing" wasn't meant to be construed as 'fill your boots and close stuff'. However, the tool IS in default preferences. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @David Eppstein: - hi. I only have access to the deletion log, which is what I was basing my comments on. Without admin tools I do not think it is possible to ascertain the process you describe above. If it is possible, I'd love to know how. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering why the table on the main page listed "page numbers" for the book. Maybe they were only book chapters.
    WP:SYSTEMIC bias in the coverage of articles and considering if we apply the "regular" NACADEMIC criteria we might end up with nearly 0 articles about academics in some countries/categories. I've listed this in the AfDs for "russian" related articles to get more people to look at it, per JoelleJay's comment. Dr. Universe (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If he indeed meets C6 the article should be kept, but if there's substantial COPYVIO it might need to be TNT'd and rewritten. The Rector website was last edited 21/4/5 so it does predate at least this version of our article, but I am not experienced in determining COPYVIO versus acceptable paraphrasing so best to ask at the relevant noticeboard if this is a concern. I'm guessing it's harder to prove plagiarism for translated/transliterated material though. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I wrote some years ago for Jiri Cizek and Donald James LeRoy got deleted almost instantly for "copyright violations" even though I had paraphrased and never came even close to copy-pasting. Yes, I determined that the article was almost entirely taken from the rector website based on Google Translate. The Wiki article is also in different languages though, so maybe those will match closer with the Rector website. I think it does indeed seem that the subject meets C6 and I'd say even C1 considering the subject's circumstances, but it does seem the article could benefit from a lot of work. Dr. Universe (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duck and Cover (South African band)

Duck and Cover (South African 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)

Fails

WP:NBAND, advertisement. Geschichte (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Beauty

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

With just 2 high quality press mentions (one is at

WP:NMUSIC. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chindamanee School English Program

Chindamanee School English Program (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 school. Article virtually unsourced, only supported by citation of the school's own website, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media and directory listings etc. Fails

WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Being

WP:SNOW and SALTing. Missvain (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Zennic

Zennic (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 musician, fail of

WP:SINGER. nearlyevil665 09:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 09:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Previously moved into the draft. Fails
WP:SINGER GermanKity (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Salt too, the drafts were earlier copies created by the same SPA but moved by editors to draft, so it never really got developed in draft. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Maximum Games#Modus Games. ✗plicit 11:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modus Games

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

Videogame sub-brand does not meet

WP:ROUTINE stories about the brand's launch and buyouts. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neutral on whether or not this should be kept as an independent article, but favour a merge to
    talk) 13:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As nominator, I agree that this merger is another option. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pasig Christian Academy

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

Fails

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russna Kaur

Russna Kaur (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 young artist who has some exhibitions and won a prize but does not meet

WP:ARTIST. Probably too soon. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't get beyond
    WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The article appears to have been created as part of an educational assignment. [21] I do not know how this subject was selected, but it is probably a disappointing experience for a student to see one's work get deleted. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that an writing about an emerging artist is a poor choice. By definition, emerging is not notable. As a subject, a recent MFA graduate (2019) working as a sessional instructor at the same school where they graduated, written by a student at that same school is less than ideal. I'd be interested to hear from the instructor MagnoliaPauker, why this subject was assigned for the class. I suspect there may be something we missed. It is not mentioned in the article for example that one of the "notable works" listed in the infobox was acquired by the Vancouver Art Gallery for its permanent collection [22]. Vexations (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I added to the article the collection that Vexations found. A search did not find more collections, but she seems to be doing Museum shows (example). Notability is borderline, but I think it's pretty obvious it's heading in the direction of being clear, fairly soon. Regarding cutting special breaks for substandard student work, I don't think this is a good idea. We are building an encyclopedia, not training students; in many ways their needs are irrelevant to our mission, and I am unaware of another group that gets a special break for creating poor articles. --- Possibly (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly, I did not mean to imply that we should lower our standards for articles submitted by students. I frequently see students or new participants at edit-a-thons working on articles that have been suggested by them. When I make such a suggestion, I only do so when I'm sure that the subject can pass an AfD. I assume/hope that organizers and instructors do the same. So when such an article comes up at AfD, I think it would be helpful to hear from the student and the instructor. Unfortunately, I too often see that the creators have already stopped editing Wikipedia by the time the article is nominated, so we don't hear from them. That's a missed opportunity. Vexations (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

PAREF Northfield School

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

Fails

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pace Academy (Quezon City)

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

Fails

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Hudson University

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

Name of fictional university that appears in a number of unrelated works, from comics to some TV dramas. Basically a

WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Ineligible for prod (was tried in 2011, declined), so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Law & Order (possibly the filming section) which is where it mostly appears, incorporating info from the NYT article. The other appearances in fiction are less relevant.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    alternative to deletion and compromise based on the above discussion. czar 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Law & Order (franchise)#Location - The only genuinely in-depth coverage in a reliable source is the NYT article, which is mostly on the specific version that reoccurs in the Law and Order franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is towards the place meeting

(non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 17:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Virochannagar

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

Fails

WP:NPLACE. Fairly smaller neighbourhood in Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad has 48 Wards (which denotes large neighbourhoods) in 7 Zones and Virochannagar is not in them. See Zone/Ward list. There is no reference as well since 2018. -Nizil (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PRince (cartoon character)

PRince (cartoon character) (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. Almost zero in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources.

talk) 07:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kabirchowk

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

Fails

WP:NPLACE. Fairly smaller neighbourhood in Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad has 48 Wards (which denotes large neighbourhoods) in 7 Zones and Kabirchowk is not in them. See Zone/Ward list. Nizil (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source provided is some sort of map name database and "areas" are not automatically notable. I'll note this user has created several dozen similar articles that may also need to go. Reywas92Talk 01:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No legal recognition to meet
    WP:GEOLAND nor coverage for GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Aishaa14 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fox Canning

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

Fails

WP:GNG, he has received some passing mentions for being killed at the Battle of Waterloo, but has not received any mentions longer than about a sentence for that event or any other. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He does, indeed. He's also in the National Portrait Gallery collection alongside a load of other officers in an engraving by Thomas Heaphy of 'Field Marshall the Duke of Wellington KG Giving Orders to his Generals Previous to a General Action'. And that's about as notable as we get... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lots of passing mentions of his death at Waterloo but lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet
    WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete No significant coverage. Aishaa14 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zaur Kamal

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

PROD removed by ip address. References do not show notability of the subject. fails

WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

famous person. He is well known in his country and abroad. resources are good. please review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.244.124.28 (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urmila Jain Bhaya

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

Doesn't meet

can't inherit notability from her husband. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Enough for me. I'm deleting and salting. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Neupane

AfDs for this article:
Prakash Neupane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) winning some poem competitions doesn't makes anyone eligible for having an article on wp, only having one or two RS does'nt allows the person to be considered as notable, Other Experienced editors must discuss about this page !! Suryabeej (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- I had AFD'ed the page after finding it had been AFD'ed 3-4 times and lacks sufficient refs, as the page wasn't refered properly, I now searched in depth and found few more wp:rs which I feel MIGHT allow him to pass GNG weakly thus I am withdrawing this AFD, I don't have objection if any other editor feels like afding it, but I feel it soft-passes the GNG criteria. Sorry My bad. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 07:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well the new source you added is a copy of this source and you added this source which is written by same author who wrote most of his articles. And this is a contributor post. Don't know WHO or WHAT changed your mind and I feel something is wrong here. Regards.
UTC
)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Suryabeej (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @
    AfD discussion can continue. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
well forcing to proof someone non notable as notable doesn't work over here and since you seem to have some special care for the subject ;), I would like to enlighten you with the fact that among all the rubbish links provided above just [30] this one is Okeish, Rest all are the Puff pieces (Clearly paid one including the Zee and Asianet without any byline everyone here on wikipedia knows it clear well that how Indian media can provide puff pieces so you can't force to show the subject as Notable because it clearly fails
wp:rs both.Suryabeej (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Also I Afded the article because I found it utter promotional and full of non reliable rubbish paid publication links, and when I saw it has been deleted again and again for 4 times and despite of that you recreated it I had to ask the admin what made it stay despite of all these :

Suryabeej (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article is well supported by reliable sources. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would request you to kindly enlighten us with which source except The Hindu you find Reliable? Suryabeej (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt: after 4 discussions this page was recreated by
    wp:COI, rest all the provided sources are either from Non-Notable publications and or are paid pieces without bylines, which makes them Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. also I am Pinging all the active editors who voted from previous all the 4 discussions so that they can lead to a clear conclusion. Ronhjones, Northamerica1000, Bonadea, Cunard, Velella. Suryabeej (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think you're going Crazy here, the article was created via draft and according to COI I'm Nepali wikipedin so I've created many nepali musicians wikipedia and u created this one too and another thing is you can't vote for two times as you filed
talk) 18:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:RS? nirmal (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Nirmaljoshi: bro the answer to your this question is here, just check the list closely. :)Suryabeej (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Suryabeej:-Great!nirmal (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Suryabeej: striking the dele*te !vote, as you are the nominator and have already effectively !voted. --- Possibly (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt: Previously deleted multiple times and sources seems to be paid. A great finding in sources is stated by User:Praxidicae on this page showing many articles posted by same author but still the changes were reverted ignoring all warnings. JAHANZAIBARIF (talk
Note that the account is Newly created and just to vote. Might connect with the one who created AFD. 103.10.31.47 (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this IP editor claims to be User:Owlf.1 Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Or weak delete. It appears the subject has finally passed the notability threshold. The UPE is strong with this one, but competent too it seems, going by the sources that don't read right but, impressively, exist. Also impressive that this seemingly mundane subject seems to have attracted abusive editing on the delete side. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a UPE farm out there, that didn't get paid. Since, unfortunately, there is no community consensus on deleting UPE-tainted articles because they are UPE-tainted, I suggest we keep and try and regulate the addition of unsourced and weakly sourced puffery instead. Obviously, I have no objection to deleting it and salting, until an independent looking version is submitted to AFC, if that would be less taxing on the spam-fighters. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. I wouldn't mind speedy keep and speedy blocking of nom and their sock either. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Firstly, I want to ask why the creating user Owlf was blocked while s/he was actively taking part in discussion? How was the blocking administrator sure? I feel it is a kind of harassment to the user. While looking at the log of this user's contribution, it appears he has been making most of the edits on Nepalese actor/actress/musicians since long. Whether it was his hobby or he was being paid can only be judged but not proved. Secondly, regarding the article- its a usual case that Nepalese artists are rarely a topic of notable news or scholarly articles. Fortunately, current online media are providing some indication of their notability via some coverage. In this particular case of Prakash Neupane, the coverage in an Indian media 1 and some nepali music realted magazines are available, so it could indicate a soft keep. And i totally agree with Usedtobecool on why this subject is attacting abusive editing - is it the case of multiple paid editors? Regards! nirmal (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is here read it properly and you will come to know why was he blocked. Rest in talking about This Zee News From India ts purely a paid Article because it clearly lacks its source or say The Byline and although the JAHANZAIBARIF which seems like an SPA but have stated a very correct detailing about its source by Praxidicae over here. Suryabeej (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for mentioning. I already went through the items you mentioned before commenting here. And basically that was the main reason for my concern. This report is unclear, and blocking seems to be done hapazardly. Given that the user had been editing music/actor related articles since last few years, it becomes a suspcet that suddenly the account became compromized while editing this article. I have doubt. Plus, regarding this source discussion, it is also my concern. The sources should have been discussed/reopened by the Nominator in the talk page first before this CSD. Regards! nirmal (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not the complete history. Just the latest disruptive editing spree. Check their contributions. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its sad that users are getting on fruitless disputes instead of using their energy for constructive edits. nirmal (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I originally closed this discussion due to the sockpuppet investigation of the nominator...turns out they're not a sockpuppet even though from my perspective they looked like one. My bad! Reopened. versacespaceleave a message! 16:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How you closed this nomination on behalf of a sockpuppet case archieve which is not even relevant ?? Like just curious to know what made you think like that?Suryabeej (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep it would appear that with winning an award, his songs may also be getting radio airplay which means he meets
    WP:MUSICBIO. Lesliechin1 (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can a few more experienced editors take a look at this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This version appears to be no better than all the previous iterations. Fails
    WP:GNG . Please salt to prevent yet another re-incarnation.  Velella  Velella Talk   07:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
So you mean you're still comparing it to previous verison? when it was re-created via Draft. Do you think Nepali news doesn't meet
talk
)
ENOUGH. Discuss article content,
not other editors. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits
)
  • Admin comment - Another sockpuppet investigation has been opened regarding select participants in this deletion discussion. Missvain (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hello there, I just want to make it clear that I'm not related to the nominator in any way. I saw a Facebook group post where a person named "Prakash Neupane" was offering news articles and wikipedia page creation service to people and asking them to pay money. When I searched his name on google, I found his wikipedia page that was already put under Afd. I checked some of his articles and found that they were published by the same Nepali author who was interacting to the posts on his FB account which brought me the doubt that this page was created by paid articles. The page was created by the same user and looking at the page edit history it seems that many experienced editors were against the page creation but don't know how he still managed to recreate it. I've a strong feeling that the account "Owlf" is owned by the subject himself. I found same thing was shared by Praxidicae on this page. I don't know if anybody will belive this or not but I take responsibility of everything that I said above and I leave the decision upto the Admins who are experienced. Thanks. User:JAHANZAIBARIF (talk)
Also if admins think that despite all these concerns the subject is eligible for a wikipedia page then no one should have a problem but I hope that a fair outcome will be made. Cheers. User:JAHANZAIBARIF (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you're leaving your second message after the sockpuppet investigation you suddenly appear. So you mean
talk) 19:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@JAHANZAIBARIF- Generally, Prakash is a common name and Neupane is also a common surname. So there could be misunderstanding. Just to be clear, can you share the link to "Facebook group post" or a way to verify your claim? Regards! nirmal (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nirmaljoshi- First of all I'm glad that sockpuppet investigation was completed for the second time. To answer your question, Well my doubt was right and the subject after reading my earlier comment here deleted his group posts. I feel sorry that i couldn't save that post where he was selling wikipedia page creation service. But i still managed to find his old posts which he couldn't find to delete. Watch | screen recording 1 here where the subject himself who thinks he is a noteable person is asking for help from Nepali wikipedia editors because he was afraid that his page will get deleted since many editors were against the page creation:D Watch | screen recording 2 here where he is looking for content writers to write articles for him. What a noteable person he is! I'm sure after seeing this comment he will delete these posts as well. Still you can check the links to his posts [31], [32]. It's sad that new user accounts on wikipedia are not considered credible.. JAHANZAIBARIF (talk)
Well I've seen many people or artists requesting help in the Wikipedia Weekly group every day but how does that prove that the articles are paid and written by other or self-published and the talk page discussions about articles which were removed before have not been completed yet. And about new accounts credibility.... anyone here is credible when they made constructive edits.
talk) 10:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the wikipedia rules say "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments". I think the proofs I provided are enough to prove that subject is himself involved in the spam campaign of this article and the articles are paid. And please don't forget to check this screen recording here :) Goup link is here Isn't offsite coordination against the rules?. After seeing these it's easy to assume that user Owlf is Prakash Neupane himself. Rest I leave upto the admins. Regards. JAHANZAIBARIF (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm here to discuss a Wikipedia article and about the notability of a Nepali musician. I'm not here to care or defend who posts what on Facebook, whose eating or not. I'm here to edit not to spread (this might be that, I feel that or it may be that) kind of rumours. And not only about these particular articles I've always defended when someone tags for the deletion discussion on the page which I've created. And about the articles which are been on discussion her
talk) 11:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • COI-
    WP:COI case and thus I request Ser Amantio di Nicolao to have a look at the screen recording above where in one post verified account of Prakash Neupane is asking other wikipedia users to revert edits by you and there other editors are asking him in the comment section to inbox which I presume is for fixing the prices for the edits, Thank you JAHANZAIBARIF for providing the screen recording, also check COI edits by owlf, Thanks Suryabeej (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I also request Praxidicae to have a look over here Suryabeej (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Wikipedian yes I'm on Wikipedia weekly group and many editors here are on that group. And about everyday i see help requets doesn't mean that i'm connected with COI lol.
talk) 11:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
IT CLEARLY SHOWS because request to edit different pages on multiple group by the facebook user account of prakash neupane like on some nepal related group and wikipedia weekly group as per the screen recording IT SHOWS THAT NEUPANE HAVE A NATURE OF COI and YOU are the one who created his pageover here after knowing the WP rules and having all those access clearly shows the missuse of WP POLICY, that clearly shows that you have a COI with Prakash NeupaneSuryabeej (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've created many Nepali articles based on musician, politics, movies, actors and I've been editing too, that doesn't mean being COI. :D
talk) 11:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 13:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Because you can view it under "view source" and you've totally missed my point. YODADICAE👽 13:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well sometimes time varies might be you are wrong take a deep look as there it had mentioned in view source "The Hindu" as OG photo source and also has tagged "The Hindu" ['img data-variant="FREE" data-device-variant="" src=https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/music/taeus0/article31748951.ece/BINARY/thumbnail/prakashneupane2"
talk) 14:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Even if I am completely wrong about the copy, my point still stands that the only "decent" source is the Hindu and that simply isn't enough. YODADICAE👽 14:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That might be enough for you but being a Nepali source that exists also do follow
talk) 14:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nepali sources don't get a special pass of
WP:RS just by virtue of being Nepali. The rest are simply unreliable PR nonsense. YODADICAE👽 14:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment the Google translated text of the 2nd of theses reads " Young singer Prakash Neupane's new album has been released on Fusion Digital Store. Prakash's new album has also been released on iTunes Store, Google Play, Amazon and Spotify. Click here to listen to Prakash's song on iTunes.Click here to listen to Prakash's song on Spotify.His songs are in rap and hip hop genres. He has also sung against Nepali social and political distortions and anomalies.As the use of CDs, VCDs or cassettes has disappeared in Nepal as well, the practice of releasing albums in digital stores has started commercially. Apart from that, songs and videos are also released through platforms like YouTube and Facebook.Prakash's new album Fusion has 7 songs. This is her second album after singing more than a dozen songs so far. Prior to this, in 2016, his album titled Prakash Tunes was released.His songs have been viewed nearly 2 million times on YouTube alone, while the song You Got Me has been viewed more than 1 million times. The songs of 21-year-old singer Prakash, who started singing at the age of 16, are very popular among the Nepali youth. Videos of his 9 songs have also been made public. To know more about Prakash and listen to all his songs, visit his website. " That conveys absolutely no notability. I would add the first source but it is no better. These are commercial plugs, nothing more.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nepali to English translations are not that much good, i think Nepalese editors knows better about Nepalese sources more than any other countries editors.
talk) 15:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I know how to read nepali and the translation is almost okay, and google translation only give a basic translation of what it is already there, it can create its sentences of own. and that ABC Nepal which you are trying to portray ABC News is totally rubbishSuryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 15:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to potrya as it passes
talk) 15:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Additionally when 5 Nepali editors have claimed it as a reliable source, just Sticking with one word RUBBISH won't help all the time while doing deletion discussions here in wikipedia.
talk) 16:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
where did that happened ? that consensus? please enlighten us with it, we would be happy to see where this ABC NEPAl is stated under
WP:RS?Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 16:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noocenosis

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

This looks like a term used by a certain Russian academic group, and little known elsewhere. The article was likely created for self-promotion by a person connected to that group. A corresponding page in Russian Wikipedia, ru:Нооценоз, was deleted with reasons given as “no proof of notability” and “advertising”. Brinerat (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Maybe it would be helpful to ask for input at WikiProject Ecology? The dense technical language and Russian references make this a hard one for the average Wikipedian to make a judgement about. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search of Web of Science for "Noocenosis OR noocenose OR noocoenosis" as topic yields no publications. Clearly not notable. Athel cb (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a classic failure of
    WP:N. jps (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself says that this term is only used in "post-Soviet countries", and it smells like a post-Soviet Lysenkoism. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_May_30&oldid=1027262810"