Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 03 April 05 >

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. Without prejudice against recreation as a disambiguation page Eddie891 Talk Work 01:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of government

Criticism of government (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 contains no useful information at all, is unsourced, and doesn't help the reader understand the topic. I would suggest converting this to a disambiguation, as there are many more specific articles on this topic. CrazyBoy826 23:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This an overly broad and vague topic. The "See Also" section is a coat rack of criticisms of various ideologies and constitutional structures. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is simply too broad to be an article. "Criticism of X" would only seem to work if it's narrowed to a specific field or a specific work. There are hundreds of governments, none of which are identical such that the inclusion of any particular "criticism" would simply be an arbitrary selection. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No useful information Athel cb (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough to qualify for a wiki article. Pilean (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a possibility to recreate as a disambig. page or a list. This could serve as a disambig. page, but it does not provide proper disambig. This might be also a list, but it is not properly constructed as a list. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 17:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article seems very vague, is remarkably short, and only describes its own name - mainly because the very topic is too vague. I agree with My very best wishes' (potential) suggestion of a disambiguation page. Forvana 19:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment per nom Rajuiu (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birżebbuġa St. Peter's F.C.

Birżebbuġa St. Peter's F.C. (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 amateur club, fails WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 TT me 23:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 23:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article's too poorly sourced, but it's a former first division Maltese club that's sourceable: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Not all of those are great sources, but the Maltese league gets decent local coverage, and if I saw this red-linked, I would try to create the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SportingFlyer's research which shows notability. GiantSnowman 10:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12th line. Also passes WP:GNG as they have significant coverage from the Maltese Football Association, which is reliable and official and a FIFA member, thus being naturally independant. apple20674apple20674 Talk 12:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SportingFlyer, also is the nominator doing a WP:BEFORE at all? Govvy (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets FOOTYN and gets just about enough coverage for the article to be justified anyway Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - By the sources found from SportingFlyer, I think this is might be a clear keep here. HawkAussie (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. FOOTYN determines which subjects can be assumed to meet GNG. Once challenged, however, compliance with GNG actually has to be shown, which the "keep" !voters have not succeeded in doing. Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Venera Lightnings F.C.

St. Venera Lightnings F.C. (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 amateur football club, fails WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 TT me 23:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 23:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't sourced as well as the Birzebugga St. Peters AfD, but there's still some clear coverage of the division by Maltese press in a BEFORE search. Could probably pass WP:GNG with some Maltese sources and some elbow grease, but I can't make a good keep argument at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 23:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sam Smith discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love Goes: Live at Abbey Road Studios

Love Goes: Live at Abbey Road Studios (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 and WP:NALBUM. Not convinced at all about the notability of this album – I redirected this to Sam Smith discography#Live albums but it was reverted by an IP, so I am bringing it here for further discussion. Despite the artist's fame, this album has gone almost unnoticed – the Billboard article in the sources is about the concert last year which resulted in this album, not the album itself, and the other sources in the article are primary sources (Smith's website, the studios' website, and UDiscover, which is owned by Universal Music, Smith's record label). Other sources online are simply promotional announcements that the album is to be released, for example [6], [7] and [8], none of which discuss the album in any detail beyond "it's coming out" and a track listing. The only review I can find is a non-RS user contribution to an online community website, which is pretty superficial anyway [9]. The only places I can find that this album has charted is one week at no. 129 in France [10] and one week at no. 80 on the Billboard Current Album Sales [11], not one of Billboard's major charts, and very minor chart placings on both in any case – these chart placings could easily be included in the discography where I originally redirected the album to, and the news of the concert and its subsequent release as an album could be added as one sentence to Sam Smith#2019–present: Love Goes. Richard3120 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: The Daily Telegraph review is of the concert last year, not the album. The Rolling Stone article talks about one song, the Cyndi Lauper cover, and doesn't have any coverage of the rest of the album. That just leaves the one paragraph in Billboard, which again is little more than a list of tracks included. Richard3120 (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tought there was the review of the album, my bad. Changed the vote. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I just think there's a danger when you try and conflate the concert review with the album... are they reviewing the music on the record, or the whole visual performance as well? This is why I'm really not sure whether the album itself is notable by itself. Richard3120 (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Max24 above is the creator of this article, and is also now suggesting a redirect. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital effects on climate

Orbital effects on climate (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 is entirely synthesis or original research, with virtually none of its content sourced to be about the title. "Earth's axial tilt": yes this explains the seasons, but isn't directly about the orbit or connected with sources to climate. "Earth's eccentricity": we are given a mathematical equation for an ellipse, and a description of how it changes, but no sourced discussion about climate. "Precession of solstices and equinoxes": again, this relates to the seasons but has no sourced discussion on climate. "External/Celestial forces": vague mentions of solar activity, but this has literally nothing to do with Earth's orbit. This is a poorly written student essay (per creation edit summary "Completion Report") not an encyclopedia article and doesn't seem salvageable. Reywas92Talk 22:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It goes without saying that all the material covered here is already covered in much greater depth elsewhere - Axial precession, Orbital eccentricity#Climatic effect, Axial tilt#Earth, Milankovitch cycles, and several others. A hub article that ties these together might not be a bad thing, but again, I would be surprised if that didn't exist already; although I couldn't locate it at this point. If there isn't one yet, this attempt needs a LOT more referencing and more dedicated summarizing (rather than expounding on random details) than what's in the article ATM. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Statements on Wikipedia require citations to reliable sources. This text does not meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability standard, which is the criteria for inclusion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a nuisance, but this does not make sense. Notability is obviously not an issue (of course there are effects of orbital characteristics on the climate, and of course that is a notable topic). And undersourced is not a deletion criterion, as long as it can be shown that sufficient sources exist (which again is trivial here). The question is whether there is need for an article of that scope, given what we already have in other articles, and whether this is so fatally flawed in construction that it should be removed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an important and valid subject, but it reads like a poorly sourced essay. Should we WP:TNT it? It depends. If someone is going to improve it, then I think it could be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topics of this article have been covered in several places already with greater detail. Because of all the problems with this page, I would be inclined to just delete it, although WP:TNT could work as well if a hub article is needed. Jguglielmin (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no need for a hub article for this. WP:TNT as a last resort, but I don't think that's necessary. PianoDan (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reads like a science journal Devokewater 17:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyt House (Fernandina Beach, Florida)

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

Another inn not on the Register. I do not know if a mere one page listing in the university of florida press book is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — per DGG, a mere one page listing in the university of florida press book is not sufficient. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The State Library of Florida catalogue says that it's on the register, but presumably you've checked the register itself, yes? ☺ I cannot find anything else documenting the history of this house that (a) isn't in Bed and Breakfast guides, (b) isn't actually explicit sourced in those guides to the Bed and Breakfast's own WWW site. The State Library of Florida catalogue description is basically a list of who owned the house, and pretty close to word-for-word with this article. I wouldn't be surprised if the book, our article, and the State Library all had a single source in common; and a list of house owners is not in-depth history. Uncle G (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Colonnade Inn (Sea Isle City)

The Colonnade Inn (Sea Isle 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)

another inn without historic status [12]-- I can find nothing further that seems useful DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) ADVERT (2) COPYVIO (3) Buildings of 1883 are sufficiently common to need something fairly special to make them notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cant find anything that suggests notability Devokewater 17:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subzi Mandi Cash & Carry

Subzi Mandi Cash & Carry (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 criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 21:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FantaSea Resorts

FantaSea Resorts (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 criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 21:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 21:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A timeshare company going about its business, with resort properties, timeshare-exchange listings, event sponsorship, etc. I am not seeing the coverage about the firm itself which is needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The JGA Group

The JGA Group (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 criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 20:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article setting out a company's wares. Searches find continuing mention of their partnerships [13], of inspections [14] and local awards, but I am not seeing the coverage about the company which is needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources provided do not have an actual WP:RS, some appear to be a listing. TheChronium (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwise International

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

Ignoring the fact that this article appears to be used as a list of Sushil Sukhwani articles and the fact that the article is promotional, there are no references that meet WP:NCORP. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. HighKing++ 20:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 20:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — the organization lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though WP:PROMO contents have been trimmed down, the article still lacks publications in reliable sources hence doesn't meet WP:N. TheChronium (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karpuragauram Karunavataram

Karpuragauram Karunavataram (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 of many hundreds of various verses used in Hindu worship. No indication of independent notability. Also unsourced - the listed references do not point to anything related.

Besides, the article content does not offer much for the reader. The transliteration contains many errors while the English translation, although very good IMO, is either a copyvio or OR of one of the editors. — kashmīrī TALK 20:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī TALK 20:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī TALK 20:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī TALK 20:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Ali Bin Ali

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

There are no reliable sources cited on the page. A google search shows that there has been some coverage of him but it's by unreliable propaganda outlets like Al-Arabiya.[15] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessperson lacking reliably sourced coverage. We need to be very vigilant to stop Wikipedia from turning into LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't pass our notability guideline and it slipped through since 2013. TheChronium (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Bhat

Bilal Bhat (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, The sources are youtube and ETV mostly for which he works and i couldn't find any SIGCOV on the subject. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahrukh Inayet

Mahrukh Inayet (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, NO SIGCOV AND RS. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, WP:JOURNALIST, and WP:BASIC. There is biographical, education, and early career information from the Verve magazine source that is now added to the article, as well as additional support for WP:JOURNALIST notability, i.e. she is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, in part due to her reporting on the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, e.g. by the Hindustan Times, The Quint, in addition to Verve. She also received a non-trivial mention of her general work for Times Now in The Hindu afterwards. In addition, Aaj Tak reports she won an eNBA award in 2013 for her journalism. Her tweets during the 2014 floods in Jammu and Kashmir were reported on by FirstPost and a contributor to Buzzfeed India. Her tweets during the 2019 telephone and internet blackout in Kashmir were reported by The Times of India and Scroll.in. Her commentary on the media has also been featured by SheThePeople.TV, and quoted by The News Minute. Additional biographical information has been reported by The Quint and her commentary related to some of her biographical information has been commented on by another journalist in the Hindustan Times. Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and the independent and reliable sources that have been added to the article now appear to demonstrate sufficient notability per the guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes GNG as per the improvements made by Beccaynr. The subject is notable now. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing:- Beccaynr has done some crazy additions. My WP:BEFORE didn’t comeup with so many results. I’m more than happy to withdraw this AfD because it’s in a far better state now. Thanks Beccaynr.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 02:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Uunona

AfDs for this article:
Adolf Uunona (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 was the subject of a contentious no-consensus AfD in December where the closing admin found the delete arguments stronger than the keep. Since then, it's been at the core of a fair amount of controversy regarding its appropriateness, particularly in the context it was apparently written for a DYK hook that was later deemed inappropriate.

The subject is at best extremely borderline for WP:NPOL, an SNG that has been interpreted as exclusionary as well as inclusionary, and quite likely doesn't fit it at all. What coverage he has is quite certainly WP:BLP1E -- and I say that with significant intent, as someone who in the vast majority of situations is on the critical, "that's not a 1E" side and wrote the damn essay on it. Uunona hits every hallmark for BLP1E, specifically the fact it's more or less a by-proxy WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. He is, in his personal life, low-profile. He is covered only in the context of a single event -- his name -- that is, independently, not exactly something where he has a significant role (he certainly wasn't Adolf Hitler himself, and it's not something he particularly chose). He does not seek out attention for his name and indeed is actively ashamed of it. He actively opposes media attention on the topic, refuses interviews, and otherwise shows every hallmark of wanting the matter to be low-profile. Essentially: BLP1E is at its core a proxy BLPREQUESTDELETE, something where we must make the call for ourselves "would the subject request deletion if they knew how?", and delete as BLP1E if so. I confidently believe Adolf Uunona would want this article deleted. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL since his elected office is municipal. Doesn't meet notability for one event, since the event is not notable. TFD (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable local councillor. The subject received some coverage in December but it was all related to his unusual name and therefore fails WP:SUSTAINED. This is as close as we will ever get to a textbook WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E example. Valenciano (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NPOL by holding a notable office, as his role is at the local level rather than the national legislature — but getting a brief blip of "news of the weird" coverage because of his name just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring international significance who would pass the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Meets WP:NPOL Adolf Unona is notable under the provision for people who have been members of legislative bodies at provincial levels. In Namibia, constituency councillors have a dual role as far as I can tell. Although they are local officials who have a local office, they also members of regional councils, which are the Namibian equivalent of state or provincial legislatures. ( Regional councils also elect members of the National council, the Nigerian upper chamber of the national legislature from among their members) Although this technically meets NPOL, and therefore I feel like it should be kept, I don't want my vote to stand in the way of a snow close if there are no other keep votes soon given the subject not wanting attention because of his name. Changing my vote to Keep per my already stated rational, since it thankfully did not go to the main page and give the subject unwanted attention.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Having a politician (as opposed to just an ordinary person) with such name, which did not prevent him from being elected, seems to be marginally notable/interesting. Or may be this is just as a hilarious story, something like "vote for the name you know". That is why this story was published in many RS and was widely debated in other media, which is a reason to keep. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make it any less BLP1E. And yes, this is BLP1E, not the conviction of a lot of deletionists that BLP1E means "anything where if you squint there's a primary event means BAD ARTICLE". Someone who got a flash of news-of-the-weird coverage that they were openly unhappy with and avoided as much as possible is classic BLP1E. Vaticidalprophet 01:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what exactly event you are talking about. He won several elections. Sources refer mostly (but not exclusively) to elections in 2020, but again these local elections were not a notable event. The potentially notable is the story about the person. If the subject likes the story is irrelevant. Saying that, I agree that the case is weak, and would not be surprised if the page will be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LOWPROFILE -- seeking political power at the level he does is entirely compatible with being low-profile, and nothing he's done outside of having an awkward name is relevant. Whether the subject likes the story is indirectly relevant to BLP1E (which is far more a privacy guideline than a notability one) -- a subject who rejects attention for their one event fits the relevant clauses. Vaticidalprophet 08:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this link/policy, Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile. That guy clearly was seeking media attention, for example by giving interviews to Bild and other newspapers (see here, for example). It would be strange if he did not. Every politician does it if he wants to be elected. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians are covered by the clause above the level normally expected within the field in question. There's nothing going on here that makes him self-promotional for his field, and every indication he isn't. Vaticidalprophet 02:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as described here [16],
"He told Bild, the German tabloid, that his father named him without realising the connotations. "As a child I saw it as a totally normal name," he added. “Only as a teenager did I understand that this man wanted to conquer the whole world."..."
Here is link to Bild [17]. This is a self-promotion. See Media attention He gave interviews voluntarily. These are not local newspapers. There is nothing bad when someone does self-promotion, especially in politics. If he did more or less promotion than other politicians is irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So, I think none of three conditions of WP:BLP1E was satisfied here ("We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met":
  1. No, there were multiple elections, not a single event; or perhaps there was no an a event
  2. No, he is not a "low profile" individual (see my comment above)
  3. Not clear what event. The role of the individual in his elections was the key. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what BPL1E is intended for, a subject who is barely notable for one thing, especially where that one thing is not a major high-profile event, and the subject does not wish to be known for it. If he had committed a prominent murder, or if his political career had included a significant scandal, something like that could be a single event sufficient to make him notable. He appears to be notable solely for his unique name, and the article quotes him explicitly as not wishing to be known for that reason. Aside from his name, and holding a non-notable political office, what is notable about this individual? Hyperion35 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per detailed rationale by Vaticidalprophet. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing about him comes even remotely close to indicating notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I was a child, there was a member of the local city council in my hometown named Michael Jackson. He was not the same person as the world-famous singer who has the same name, although this was during a time (late 1980s) when that singer was perhaps at his peak of fame. I feel fairly comfortable in asserting that the local politician Michael Jackson was not then or now notable by Wikipedia standards, and he almost certainly received more votes than Mr. Uunona. There are a great many people who have the same name as someone famous, or otherwise have an unusual name. Occasionally, some people do go on to become notable despite their names, but it is not notable that a local politician has the same name as someone famous. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But was the story of that man covered in Bild, Independent, Euronews, etc.? That is what makes someone famous, and I simply think that man is already famous. I do not think it really matter so much for what reason - from the WP notability perspective. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a person is just famous for their name that seems like a rather flimsy reason for them to be notable, especially if the coverage was against their will. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is not just name. The story gain such publicity only because he is a successful politician and an former anti-apartheid activist. Despite some his statements, nothing was really against his will: he gave all these interviews willingly (see links with citation above and on the page) precisely to gain publicity as a politician. I suspect he would be disappointed if this WP page about him was deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Sandstein: I noticed that you had earlier closed the discussion as "Delete" but then self-reverted and relisted the discussion instead. What was your reason for doing so? Just wondering since Adolf Hitler Uunona remains deleted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Narutolovehinata5, I noticed that I overlooked that Jackattack1597 changed their opinion, which made the "delete" consensus less clear. I've not undone the ancillary deletions such as the redirect Adolf Hitler Uunona because it appeared (now even more clearly) that the article will likely be deleted. Sandstein 06:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG.--MadD (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this really comes down to whether regional constituencies are considered similar to provincial governments in Namibia or if they're a rung below what we'd normally allow per WP:NPOL. It seems to me like they're a rung below, but I'm not 100% certain. SportingFlyer T·C 11:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Haryana cricketers. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virender Dahiya

Virender Dahiya (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 cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Haryana cricketers Has played 1 FC, 2 List-A and 2 T20 games, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Seems to have gone into governmental work so cricket career seems to be over. Sources may exist in Indian sources though. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD and maybe could have been BOLDly done instead of AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Ugochukwu

Lesley Ugochukwu (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. The article states stated that he made his pro debut on 4 April (today), but he was an unused substitute in the game against Reims according to Soccerway. So also fails WP:NFOOTY. Nehme1499 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 19:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fail GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fails under WP:CRYSTAL for now but if he makes an appearance in the league that isn't just a small substitution than I would re-consider. HawkAussie (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agreed. fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. --Kemalcan (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak draftify - he would be presumed notable enough to have an article once he makes his professional debut, which, in theory, could happen this month. Alternatively, we could just delete it as there isn't much coverage on him yet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per norminator. TheChronium (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haruna Sentongo

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

Possible covert upe G11 eligible borderline article on a non notable entrepreneur & philanthropist. Having observed the ref bombing, I assumed a WP:BEFORE would turn up cogent sources but nothing of value could be observed. I saw links to sponsored posts, self published sources, and user generated sources. Furthermore wealth or opulence doesn’t translate to notability. In all, they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @ Celestina007Thank you very much for this obersvation, let me comprehensively this Article, it will only take me a couple of hours, to sort this mess, then come back. Thank you very much. Ibitukirire (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have made edits on the Article, Eliminating and replacing most links and I'm now requesting for Expert review and modification. Thank you Ibitukirire (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
      • Articles on living businesspeople should be held to a high standard of notability. This article does not pass that bar.
      • A draft was already in draft space, and then this article was created by the same editor. Creating a page in both draft space and article space is often but not always a sign of gaming the system.
      • Does not meet general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is just blatant spam about a non-notable African businessman, and looks like UPE to me. Given the gaming concerns also present (and Robert has started an SPI related to this spamming), this is not something that can be kept IMO. JavaHurricane 06:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable Ugandan businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In Regards to Robert McClenon's observations, I did not create any drafts for Sentongo, the draft was created by a different user, the only page I created was for deceased Nuhu Muzaata Batte which was tagged for copyright infringement and deleted by admin Liz. It was later undeleted, dratified at Draft:Nuhu Muzaata Batte and Submitted for Review by the same admin, and I'm Still working on it with others' inputs. another draft I made is Reason As the World Masterpiece which I submitted: requested other expert editors for more professional edits and is currently pending review, the rest are just edits on the Existing Articles/pages as I work on more research for other articles offline. As of now, The only Existing page that I created is Haruna Sentongowhich individual I do not personally know or Ever met as of now. After finding the draft, I tried putting the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruna_Sentongo direct in the search tab which gave me the provision to directly create the page, and I first made inquiries at the TeaHouse where I was advised that I can place my own drafts in the main space, but New Pages patrol folks are likely to treat it more harshly than an article that has gone through the WP:AfC process. Hence Making the page based on that background. Ibitukirire (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I believe it would not be right, to call me a Spammer here, for instance the Shiek Nuhu Muzaata Batte who is already a dead person, someone was saying undisclosed paid editing, really? a dead man when I am not even a moslem??. I only made that after making some edits on the recently deceased Archbishop Cyprian Kizito Lwanga and Checked for Buzaata only to find no articles hence making that. kindly check my history since joining Wikipedia please. I just honestly believe that based on Reality without doubt, this gentleman is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Given his different search engines notability. Ibitukirire (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prayer
Comrades, I pray that given the number of Articles of living individuals on Wikipedia with a far less notability than this gentleman, not only in Uganda, I pray that you humbly take an appropriate action. Where necessary I can improve the article replacing and eliminating the non independent links.
  • Note:: Based on the recent history, I have decided to rescue myself from making any additional editing on my own drafts, articles pending census here in order to avoid any suspicion on my account, but ready to do as you may advise.
Independent sources in Uganda include Daily Monitor,([[18]]) New Vision (newspaper), ([[19]]) [[ The Observer (Uganda) News Paper, Nile Post NBS Television (Uganda), Newslexpoint among others.
I am not here to complain or object but rather, to learn and get more professional guidance towards becoming a better Wikipedia Editor, hence I request that you should not take me as otherwise. Thank you very much. Ibitukirire (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: this user's "improvements" have little improved the article. Still no sign of notability exists. Additionally the editor may need blocking for UPE spam. JavaHurricane 06:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any further inputs and comments in regards to that gentleman, Honestly, I finally give up on that Article.Ibitukirire (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Likely covert UPE for yet anther non notable WP:ROTM businessman and wannabe Wikipedia article. Agree with Robert about likely gaming the system and concur with the nominator on their rationale. WP:ADMASQ. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 07:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Request for Analyzing refferences Hello Fiddle Faddle I gave up on this article, but for learning purposes, I hereby humbly request that you please help me perform an analysis for some of the references i used in this article, the report will guide me when working on other articles (Eliminating some unreliable sources) when . Thank you Very Much. Ibitukirire (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ibitukirire I have replied on your talk page Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kant Singh

Kant Singh (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 cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has played in 15 matches across all three formats, meeting WP:NCRIC. At worst, redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers, per WP:ATD. Or keep simply for having the best name in cricket. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers Has played a fair few matches (6 FC, 4 List-A, 5 T20), but a search didn't bring up much coverage. From the career he had sources may well exist locally in Indian sources. Redirect though a good WP:ATD if nothing can be found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With 6 FC, 4 List A and 5 T20 matches, he is well above the WP:NCRIC threshold, even taking into account any of the proposed amendments to that standard. There does also appear to be some coverage which has not been picked up in the article which would lead to a WP:GNG pass- for example, his name comes up in the (much more limited) English version of cricketnmore.com (quoted on Yahoo Sports), which leads me to suspect that he's likely to have more extensive coverage in the Hindi version of the same website; not being able to read Hindi, I couldn't confirm this. Therefore pretty likely to be able to pass WP:GNG given someone who can read in Hindi spending some time on this. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DevaCat1: please provide links to these sources; all I'm seeing on those websites are basic stats profiles. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, the coverage in English online sources is limited, but see for example https://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/Badrinath-blazes-with-the-bat-finally/article16671373.ece; https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/top-stories/ranji-trophy-chhattisgarh-create-history-with-first-win/articleshow/54763143.cms; https://www.firstpost.com/firstcricket/sports-news/vijay-hazare-trophy-ms-dhonis-quick-fire-century-guides-jharkhand-to-78-run-win-3303654.html. There has clearly been a reasonable amount of coverage of him, but a combination of geoblocks, the various languages of India, and the fact that much of it is likely to be in hardcopy makes it difficult to access. But none of the linked articles is a scorecard- they're coverage in Indian national newspapers. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, come on. These are the definition of passing mentions in routine match reports. Even if we had fifty of these it wouldn't even come close to WP:SPORTCRIT ("sources... must provide reports beyond routine game coverage") or WP:SIGCOV. They are simply not coverage of Kant Singh and tell us nothing about him. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You think that, I think differently. My point is that if there is coverage in major nationwide Indian newspapers- newspapers covering over 10% of the world's population- in English, there is almost inevitably much deeper coverage in other languages, in hardcopy, or in regional reports (which in India can still encompass more people than a country the size of Scotland). I don't understand the urgency to delete article after article which is likely to pass WP:GNG given some work. We're gonna have to, as usual, agree to disagree. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is coverage of the matches, not of Singh himself. At AFD you actually need to produce the sources, not just offer more vague promises of existence in other languages or offline – also this guy played in the internet era so if nothing can be found online, that significantly reduces the chances that any can be found offline. Not all countries cover individual cricketers to the same granularity that happens in England/Australia/New Zealand. If coverage cannot be found, subjects like this are better covered in lists. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DevaCat1 has convinced me that more sources exist for this player. And with 15 appearances across the three formats, it isn't an unreasonable number. StickyWicket (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Nothing we have passes WP:SPORTCRIT and therefore WP:GNG yet. If non-English sources exist, that might be enough - a redirect might be the best idea here until we can actually create a decent article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers. Per my comments above. No significant coverage found so fails WP:GNG. This supersedes the presumption of notability afforded by NCRIC. Clearly not enough content to warrant a standalone article, so it would serve readers better if covered in the list article (which needs expansion). wjematherplease leave a message... 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete, per Wjemather. When does the cycle of passing off the burden of proving notability to hypothetical future editors end? JoelleJay (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that for every article under AfD, and then nothing would ever be deleted... JoelleJay (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Sayyed

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

Has played 7 first-class matches, but there is nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played in 12 matches (7 F/C, 5 LA), meets WP:NRIC. Found a bit praising his brief F/C stint, along with a couple of indepth articles about him missing out at playing at the U19 World Cup, and expanded the article with them. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A reasonable, if short, career (7 FC, 5 List-A matches and 7 U19 matches for India), but more importantly there does seem to be just enough coverage for him to pass GNG. There seems to be more than just match reports here. List of Maharashtra cricketers a suitable WP:ATD if it's deemed not enough to pass.
  • Keep 7 first class matches and 5 List A is a reasonable number; at age 25 it's unclear his career his over. Therefore a clear and obvious pass of WP:NCRIC. Also has coverage from several sources in the article; therefore would pass WP:GNG without anything further needing to be found, including potential non-English sources. As with so many other cricket articles, the AfD nomination does not appear to have a clear factual basis, and it seems WP:BEFORE was not adequately conducted. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Addition of sources satisfies GNG IMO. StickyWicket (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdeep Baweja

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

Baweja made his first-class debut in the 2015–16 Ranji Trophy, but hardly there is any significant coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian–American Long-term Census of the Arctic

Russian–American Long-term Census of the Arctic (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 is unsourced, unreferenced, not linked anywhere else on Wikipedia, and feels it was pulled off of a website which would imply a violation of copyright. I can't find a single news source that covers this subject. A quick google search for this comes from a website that is operated by the United States Department of Commerce. It is the first result under the banner of the cached link to this article here on Wikipedia. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is certainly a copyright violation: it is copied from an National Science Foundation publication. I do not know if the topic itself is notable, but in its current state, there is no content we can save due to the copyright issues. We should delete the current page (perhaps speedily, per WP:G12), with no prejudice to recreation if appropriate sources are found. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget the Russians. Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete @BenKuykendall: The National Science Foundation is a United States government agency and their work is public domain, so if the content is copied from that source then it may not be a copyright violation. If we have copyright-compatible expert source material, we can copy it into Wikipedia through processes such as Wikipedia:Journal to wiki publication. However in this case, we have no citations to sources, and there is not much attempt to demonstrate that this concept meets our standard at WP:Notability. I say delete because of that, and not because of an obvious copyright violation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here is the description of the project on a website. This is not nearly enough to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine, Los Angeles County, California

Alpine, Los Angeles County, California (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:GEOLAND. See also the essay Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data. Only cited source here is a reference to the Geographic Names Information System. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The irony here is that the Alpine Springs Mobile Home Park is by definition a populated place. ☺

    Arcadia Publishing to the rescue, again. Gurba 2010, p. 7 tells us outright that Alpine Springs is synonymous with the old settlement that was Harold, Palmdale, California, with an Alpine Station railway station and a Trego post office. And before Little Rock Creek was dammed, there used to be a Harold/Alpine Reservoir.

    • Gurba, Norma H. (2010). Palmdale. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738581224.
    • Thompson, David G. (1929). "Antelope Valley". Water-supply Paper. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 293.
  • Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I needed a talk page message, I did not object to TheCatalyst31's deprodding last year after reviewing the topos, and Uncle G is correct. It still false to say "Alpine is an unincorporated community" because what was once Alpine or Alpine Springs no longer exists. It was on the 1937 topo and disappeared by 1958. I see no irony about the mobile home park because its existence as a populated place is not related to any notability. My house, my street, and my neighborhood are populated places too. The article should be in the past tense, since a search of newspapers.com and Google Books and News do not show continued use of either Alpine or Harold as still names for this area near Palmdale, and perhaps it should be moved to Harold to cover the history in Gurba. Reywas92Talk 20:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uncle G seems to have established reasonable evidence of the place's history. The relevant part of WP:GEOLAND then seems to be

    * Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.

    So, if this is or was part of the Harold settlement then either it should be kept for improvement or merged under some wider title as a subdivision. Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My general complaint, as per WP:GNIS, is that we have thousands of these U.S. community articles that only have a single source to the unreliable Geographic Names Information System. Some like this one have previously survived either prod or AFD and they still have not been improved. If editors say that they have found sources, why do they not add them to these articles? Or at least redirect them back to the relevant U.S. country article, such as Los Angeles County, California § Communities. Otherwise, we have another in a long line of badly sourced, one or two sentence stubs that barely gets any daily pageviews Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what's the correct result here? "Merge" this to Harold? A mobile home park isn't really what we would consider a "legally recognised populated place" under GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet that is what the page says, and the mobile home park is both legally recognized and a populated place. Hence why it's ironic. Clearly we do not want to follow that idea.

      Half the battle with these poor GNIS stubs is figuring out what they even are. A poor reader or editor would follow the map reference and think that we were writing about the trailer park. Well we know what Alpine is, now; what the name on the map was; and the question is indeed what to do next. Is there enough to rename and refactor (or even keep the name and refactor, since it was named Alpine) into Harold/Alpine and all of its stuff? At least this is in the history books, with Gurba 2010, p. 7 having a few things, which The Arboretum, Charlotte (AfD discussion) in contrast is not. I've found Arcadia Publishing good for showing the way, or indeed not showing the way, but it's not the only thing to look at. Let all of us have a look, now that we know (sadly, despite the article at hand) what to actually look for.

      Uncle G (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Delete - Even with evidence that this place exists/existed, there is no evidence of legal recognition (e.g., incorporation). In that circumstance we need a WP:GNG-pass and we don't have one here - at most there is one instance of WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It turns out that a second historian has scoured the public records for us. Somewhat bizarrely, it's in an application for a power plant. Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It shows up on one topo, and that's it; there's no evidence it wasn't just someone's house, or a named point on the rail line. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of legal recognition.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm calling Heymann on this. It certainly looked delete-worthy as it appeared at time of nomination, but the edits made since then have cleared that up. A couple editors have suggested that the lack of legal recognition requires deletion, but I agree with Andrew Davidson's interpretation of WP:GEOLAND, above. I don't think it's a candidate for merger, because not only can it be developed using known sources, but it has been so developed since the time of its nomination.
Nor do I think we are declaring that the mobile home park is notable; rather that the settlement is notable. Yes, it happens now to be the site of a mobile home park, but that fact that has no impact either way on its notability. The place, not the mobile home park, is the subject of the article.
It will always be a small article, given its low relative importance, but that's not a strike against keeping it. TJRC (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article as it stands is overly reliant on the Gurba source and probably needs further cleanup, and there's a reasonable question as to whether this should be at Alpine or Harold. WP:GNG is marginal, but there's at least an argument it was a recognised place. SportingFlyer T·C 22:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I agree with SportingFlyer that the article relies too much on Gurba. I wrote a book for Arcadia and although Arcadia is by no means an academic publisher, my book did get a fairly thorough review by an editor. The unfortunate thing about Arcadia is that footnotes and references are limited in the final publication. It would help the article if someone would go find the original sources for the Gurba references. This location did have a post office (Trego and Harold), which for me meets the legal recognition requirement of #1 of WP:GEOLAND. However virtually no one agrees with me on this, so I would not want to see the article remain merely on the basis of my post office opinion. The coverage of the location is quite trivial, other than passing references in Gurba, I was not able to find much. Newspapers.com has only trivial mentions of ' "Alpine Station" Kern'. I agree that a mobile home park does not make this location notable. If it weren't through the post offices, I would !vote for delete.
  • BTW - Uncle G, I mildly question these orphan redirects you created. As they are orphans, perhaps they should be deleted? I don't have strong feelings here, it is the bolding that caught my eye.
    • Alpine Springs - Orphan redirect. GNIS (insert rant about GNIS reliability here \s ) does find an Alpine Springs Park, which is a variant of Tejon Park. GNIS also finds 8 other springs named Alpine. As nothing links to this redirect, is it necessary?
    • Trego Post Office - Orphan redirect. Searching GNIS for "Trego" and Feature Category "post office" finds three post offices. I would think that the post office in one of the places listed at Trego#Places is far more notable. Perhaps the redirect could be changed to "Trego California Post Office" or removed.
    • Alpine Station - Orphan redirect. Searching GNIS for "Alpine Station" returns 25 hits, none of which are for this locale? What's notable about this Alpine Station?
  • Cxbrx (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. Redirects at alternative names are cheap and prophylactic, and all of those are alternative names by which this subject, which encompasses the station and the post office as sub-topics, may be reached. Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting explains some of this. Notability does not apply there, as the subject is here. That's just something that takes the duplicate article builders and people looking for alternative names to here. And if ever another article turns up that has Alpine Station as a reasonable alternative name for a topic or sub-topic, we grow headnotes and disambiguation pages, just like Harold and Alpine already are. This is how the encyclopaedia develops.

      And the good thing about Arcadia is that it does, as I've seen myself from the books, choose bona fide local historians and isn't a self-publishing service for just anyone who rocks up as some other local history books turn out to be. Norma H. Gurba, museum curator and historian, is much more like an identifiable expert in the field who has done the research and the fact checking for us, poring over the records and newspapers and photo libraries and whatnot, than all of the self-published authors of histories that I've come across (and discounted) researching things over the years. Also see what I said earlier in this discussion.

      Uncle G (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G: Thanks for the reply and the kind words about Arcadia. About the redirects, I agree that in general they are cheap and can be helpful. We have a minor disagreement, which is no big deal and I'm happy to move on. Cxbrx (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per SportingFlyer. Riteboke (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons advanced above (i.e., there are at least some people living there according to the sources, there's at least some meaningful coverage of the area, the place has a relatively well documented history, the article is in better shape than at the time of nominating).DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per A7 SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlogNewss

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

Declined AFC. NN, lack of sufficient in-depth independent coverage. MB 17:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MB 17:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MB 17:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per rationale by MB, there is s lack of in-depth significant in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raving Loony Green Giant Party

AfDs for this article:
Raving Loony Green Giant 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)

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. This article does not prove notability as required by GNG, politics and organisation policies. Sentences in this article such as " who disagreed with the split and stood as a joint candidate with the OMRLP – the candidate also wished to highlight the duplicity of a number of individuals that were holding clandestine membership of each and waiting to see which "Loony" faction came out on top" sound like someone has been using this article against WP:BLOG amongst others. No evidence of notable achievement before or after elections, and no evidence of notable results in elections. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article as nominated didn't provide good evidence of notability, but there was a lot of media attention in the early 1990s, and I've reworked it using three articles from reliable sources, two of which provide substantial coverage of the party, so it now passes the GNG. Warofdreams talk 22:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the updates by Warofdreams keep. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the updates by Warofdreams. Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rush (fencer)

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

No notable sports accomplishments or medals, best ranking 402nd in 2012/2013 season, see https://fie.org/athletes/33245. Simeon (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable fencer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can anyone please point me to the relevant notability guidelines for this? Riteboke (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that there are no guidelines specifically for fencing (as otherwise it'd be mentioned at WP:NSPORT), so the general notability guidelines apply. - Simeon (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 20:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Al-Hassani

Salim Al-Hassani (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 biography of living person who is not notable Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it seems like being on The 500 Most Influential Muslims would make him notable, plus he seems to be cited often by outlets such as CNN and BCC and his book has attracted multiple reviews including one from Science (journal) in 2006. This would make him notable by WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR, but he likely fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 14:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep', appears to pass GNG and 1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in Our World would appear to pass the book notability criteria and doesn't have an article.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep', the article could do with some updating but he is mentioned by lots of secondary sources there is little doubt he is notable. Plus he does not fail WP:NPROF - in the UK, being a Prof means you have "made significant impact in [your] scholarly discipline", so he passes most definitions of notability.--الدبوني (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment الدبوني while I agree with you on this subject, your argument about being a Prof by itself is enough is not true, see WP:NPROF. --hroest 16:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yazh Sudhakar

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

WP:BLP of a writer and radio personality, not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for either writers or radio personalities. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test requires evidence of the person's significance (e.g. noteworthy awards, critical analysis of the importance of their work, etc.) supported by real reliable source coverage by journalists in real media. But this is basically a résumé, documenting his career but offering no evidence of any distinctions to make it special, and "referenced" solely to his own (deadlinked) personal website rather than any evidence of media coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sources are provided, and not credibly challenged in any detailed manner. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences

Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences (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:NSCHOOL. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The institution is accredited so it passes a minimal bar of legitimacy. It doesn't appear to award degrees; the only credential documented by the U.S. Department of Education is a "Recording Arts Technology/Technician" certificate. Nevertheless, it would be highly unusual to delete an article about an accredited institution even if the current article is a stub that is poorly referenced. If editors believe that different standards should be applied to accredited postsecondary institutions that do not award degrees then that discussion should be explicitly held with notifications for relevant projects. ElKevbo (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: Re: "If editors believe that different standards should be applied to accredited postsecondary institutions that do not award degrees then that discussion should be explicitly held with notifications for relevant projects." You might want to read through Notability#Request_for_Comment_on_the_Subject-specific_notability_guidelines_(SNG). To sum it up, "Some WikiProjects have provided additional guidance on notability of topics within their field. Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at WP:AFD)." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't referenced any such guidance, merely noted the prevailing practices and consensus usually reached in similar discussions. ElKevbo (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I was merely pointing out that giving Wikiproject authority when it comes to notability standards isn't the prevailing practice or consensus anymore. Incase you or anyone else wasn't aware of the RfC. Since it's fairly new and I know not everyone has to time keep with every little policy change. That said, you saying "If editors believe that different standards should be applied to accredited postsecondary institutions that do not award degrees then that discussion should be explicitly held with notifications for relevant projects" sounds a lot like you were giving guidance that if we are going to use different standards that we should discuss it "explicitly" with the involvement of the "relevant projects." Otherwise, I don't see why you would bring it up. Usually don't say people should do something if it's not something they are giving "guidance" about. Like, I'm not going to say someone should start an RfC about something unless that's literally what I think they should do. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I mentioned projects is that notifying them is often a quick, handy way of notifying many editors who have an interest in a particular area. If you think that other methods are better then of course you're free to pursue them, too (although I imagine that having a discussion focused on a specific topic for which there is an applicable project but not notifying that project may be perceived as uncollegial). ElKevbo (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, makes sense. The more opinions about something the better. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking over this it's a private school and lacks the sources to pass WP:NORG. So, I'm not sure what else the article should kept based on. If someone wants to provide WP:THREE good, independent in-depth sources I'd be more then happy to change my vote keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Researching into the school itself, I believe that it should be kept. The school is Accredited and although article is lackluster as best when it comes to sources, there is a large amount of sources and information that could be added to the article. I can update the article with more information and independent and in-depth sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toumablack (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although it is accredited, and it has some trivial mentions in news coverage, I can't find any reliable sources covering the university. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have never heard of this school, but if multiple independent reliable sources are writing about it, and it sounds like it is significant non-trivial coverage, then clearly that is what matters. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I stand with the good ol' captain @CaptainEek on this one, I don’t believe there is significant coverage on the university. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it should be kept, there are multiple reliable sources, and it has a multitude of non trivial coverage.Toumablack (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's non-trivial about anything cited by Cunnard in relation to this? Just to take one example, "Founded in 1980 in New York City, the school moved to Phoenix in '87, then to Tempe in '95" sounds pretty trivial to me. Maybe your referring to "Daley profiles the Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences in Tempe, Arizona. He gives its history. It's curriculum and audio equipment are discussed. Photos and contact information are included"? I'd love to see you or anyone else here try and argue that the places contact information isn't trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say far more than that. They appear to discuss the history, curriculum, internship process, etc for this school. They provide more than contact information. Are you here to have a civil discussion about whether there is sufficient coverage to build an article? Hyperion35 (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Are you insinuating that asking questions or disagreeing with you isn't having a "civil discussion"? Because that's how your comment comes off. Anyway, more on topic we (or at least I) don't have access to anything in the article that I was talking about where Cunard said it gives their contact information because it's behind a paywall. So, we (or at least I) wouldn't really have a way to determine if it contained "sufficient coverage to build an article" beyond what Cunard has said about it would we? Therefore, all I (and I assume everyone else has to go on) is what Cunard has told us and in my opinion (that I never claimed was represented anyone else) there isn't. Also, I would assume, because Cunard has contributed to AfDs quit a lot, that if there was more sufficient coverage in the article besides their contact information that Cunard would have said so. Since I'm pretty sure they (Cunard) know what constitutes "sufficient coverage" (contact information clearly not being up to that standard) and what doesn't. Either that, or they (Cunard) are just knowingly listing a bunch of arbitrary information in AfDs that is completely irrelevant to the process (and what your saying we should all be doing) when better information "to build an article" off of exists. Which it seems like your saying Cunard is doing. If I was Cunard I'd swiftly tell you otherwise and ask why your questioning my ability to do this properly. Also, we can't really "build an article" with information we don't have access to can we? Or maybe I just can't, but you can, and you rather just call out other people then do it yourself. Since I haven't seen you "building the article" since this AfD was opened or Cunard provided the references. When, I assume, your fully capable of doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I don't understand most of what you are trying to say. Rather than risk offense due to misunderstanding, I will simply re-iterate my point above that the articles that Cunard has posted appear to include more useful information than you seem to credit, it is more than just "contact information". I did not see anything behind a paywall, but I did not click on each and every link. Regardless, sources with paywalls are still valid. Please try to avoid speculating on the motivations of other editors, what they think, etc. It comes across as uncivil or worse, and contributes nothing to the conversation. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You literally made this uncivil in the first place by calling out my motivations by asking me if I was here to improve articles or not when I has 100% sticking to discussing the article and hadn't said anything personal to you or anyone else. Nice try on the gas lighting though. Your the one making this uncivil by using such tactics instead of sticking to discussing the AfD and the references. I guess you decided to go that route since you couldn't answer my question about what's not trivial about contact information. Which is cool, but I have better things to do then be attacked or have my motivations called out just because you can't answer a simple question about the quality of references someone is providing. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Sutherland

Alec Sutherland (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. Seems to be a regular Bomber Command member. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't appear notable for his war service, despite the statement in the lead. He will have been one of thousands of Britishers who served in Bomber Command. The MBE doesn't add to notability, I understand from previous discussions that an OBE is not sufficient in its own right so this will be the same for the lowest class of the order. Zawed (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with two aboveBashereyre (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just not enough for GNG. Intothatdarkness 13:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the above that there is nothing in the article to suggest that he meets any notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC) - See below[reply]
Comment Does anybody here even bother to look for sources? And possible improvements, instead of deletion? WP:Before Shaw, Allison; The Newsroom (3 May 2014). "Obituary: Alec Sutherland MBE, Bomber Command veteran BORN: 19 August, 1922, in Inverness. Died: 16 April, 2014, in Inverness, aged 91". The Scotsman. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lengthy obituary doesn't mean he's notable. And casting aspersions doesn't help you case, in my view. Intothatdarkness 19:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No "aspersions" intended. Nor was I "making a case." I was simply asking a question. If the shoe fits ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that you weren't casting aspersions, but conclude with "if the shoe fits" which undermines your earlier denial. I would remind you of your recent warning at ANI. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The obituaries mentioned don't add anything to the article in terms of notability. NOTAMEMORIAL and all that. I did check for RS mention of Sutherland and found nothing that would distinguish him as notable. Obituaries are not neutral, and there doesn't seem to be anything else out there about him. Intothatdarkness 01:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the exended obituary in The Scotsman has a lot to say. It goes on in detail about his activities, particularly while in service. And it came out of their newsroom with byline. So it should not be dismissed as a source.
Indeed, he apparently has multiple extended obituaries. I tried to update the article to better reflect that.
Whether Mr. Sutherland meets the thresholds for inclusion of Wikipedia is the remaining question. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lengthy obituary doesn't mean he's notable. Actually, if it's in a major national newspaper, yes it does, by longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 TT me 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple awards and multiple detailed obituaries providing lots of the biographical detail so conspicuously missing from the recent FA. The subject clearly passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons cited above. Clearly notable beyond being a soldier. Not the article it was when proposed for deletion. WP:Preserve WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone point me to the guideline that says lengthy obits in major reliable publications do not indicate notability? Because that appears to be the guideline the delete votes are based on and I would like to read it more carefully. Thank you.-- GreenC 15:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essay, but WP:OTTO is a good starting point in my view when it comes to newspapers in general. An obituary is not automatically a secondary or disinterested source. In this case, the unattributed obit in the Herald came out before the one in the Scotsman. It's not easy to determine if the first was contributed by the family, and the second one could have been copied from the Herald with some slight modifications. Intothatdarkness 16:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an irrelevant essay. The facts and the new and expanded sourcing have superseded the argument.
  • "North's leading lights honoured". BBC News. December 31, 2008. Retrieved April 2, 2021. A veteran swimmer, a medical professional and a leading figure on the island of Eigg have been recognised in the New Year Honours. They include Alex Sutherland for voluntary services to swimming in Inverness. ... Earlier this year, Inverness Leisure renamed its refurbished boardroom after 85-year-old Mr Sutherland. The Inverness Swimming Club stalwart has been a regular at the pool for many years and has won several gold medals in the veteran sections of competitions.
  • Patterson, Laura (28 April 2014). "RAF Veteran Inspired Many to Sporting Prowess". The Press and Journal. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
Easily surpasses WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to the question of newspapers and obituaries contained therein. Intothatdarkness 18:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?
You might read what I posted and the sources. They aren't all obituaries. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you are entitled to your opinion and assertion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You might wish to read GreenC's question again, which was inquiring specifically about long obituaries in reliable publications. As both were technically from newspapers I referred to that essay. Intothatdarkness 19:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the essay and while I understand the concern that some journalists write some articles based on hearsay or whatever sounds good without doing much factual verification, there is no evidence of that being a problem in this particular case. -- GreenC 19:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article has been significantly expanded since the nomination, both with content and sourcing. Perhaps those seeking deletion should review and reconsider...? Also, both Andrew and 7&6=13 make good arguments. - wolf 19:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOLDIER CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes the WP:GNG, WP:NSOLDIER, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:BASIC that in this case come awfully close. gidonb (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please avoid using WP:NSOLDIER. If you actually click on the link, you will find that the guideline is deprecated. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editors have posted multiple RS with significant coverage. Further, these appear to be more than just obituaries, but full news articles covering the subject's achievements. The Scotsman article alone gives us enough biographical information for a full article. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rondolinda, please provide a rationale for why all these sources do not meet GNG. Your activity on Wikipedia seems to consist mostly of voting Delete in AfD with the same generic explanation and no underlying arguments specific to the case. -- GreenC 20:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - There seems to be some coverage in sources. Article could use some cleanup. Please stop using the deprecated WP:SOLDIER essay. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable to me: got a third of a page obituary in major Scottish newspaper (The Herald) https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-herald-1130/20140503/page/18 Piecesofuk (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to passing ANYBIO and otherwise; reiterating that NSOLIDER is explicitly deprecated and inappropriate. Vaticidalprophet 12:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An obit in a major national newspaper like The Scotsman has always been held as equating to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG.--MadD (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't. Obituaries in major national newspapers clearly count as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does a user that just joined 2 days ago suddenly find their way to AfD? Have they already read all the relevant policies & guidelines, and everything else necessary for an informed !vote? - wolf 14:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
      • MADdi0X has been blocked for sockpuppetry. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Make that globally locked (fyi) - wolf 18:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple sources demonstrate SIGCOV per GNG. Article has been greatly improved since first nom. -- GreenC 03:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has significant coverage in reliable sources such as this: https://www.scotsman.com/news/obituaries/obituary-alec-sutherland-mbe-bomber-command-veteran-1538095 Dream Focus 00:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Given the improvements to the article, and the additional sources that have been added which suggest notability that was not apparent when the article was nominated, I now think that the case for Keep is much stronger than it was when I previously commented and I would now lean towards keeping rather than supporting deletion. Dunarc (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significantly improved since nomination and sources exists to meet GNG. Riteboke (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus exists that the subject meets the essay WP:FOOTYN.

However, it is reasonable to re-nominate the article on the basis of WP:GNG, though there exists a not-as-clear consensus that WP:GNG is met. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 21:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ta' Xbiex S.C.

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

Amateur team which does not meet WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 TT me 16:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — WP:FOOTYN isn’t met/satisfied here. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per research below showing club has played in national cup, the generally accepted benchmark for club notability. GiantSnowman 14:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - Passes WP:FOOTYN, because of the clause here: "Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." as shown here: "https://int.soccerway.com/national/malta/fa-trophy/20192020/preliminary-round/r53597/", in the 3rd line. Also passes WP:GNG as they have significant coverage from the Maltese Football Association, which is reliable and official and a FIFA member, thus being naturally independant. apple20674apple20674 Talk 12:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As this is clearly floored grounds for a delete argument, you can't delete an article on WP:FOOTYN when technically they qualify under WP:FOOTYN, as apple20674 has clearly shown with the soccerway url above. Which show the club do play in the FA Trophy which is Maltese version of the FA Cup here in England. @Celestina007: , @GiantSnowman: would you reconsider your votes? GNG is a slightly different matter. However there are previous incarnations of the club as shown by this article. [20], There is support from Argus Insurance for the new incarnation of the club. I am sure there are more historical sources that can help. (site:timesofmalta.com "Ta' Xbiex" football) into google shows there is a fair amount of content to go through locally for Malta. Govvy (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:FOOTYN due to playing in a national cup, as evidenced above. If we keep all clubs that play in the FA Cup or even the FA Vase, it seems silly to delete an article on a Maltese club that has done the same. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The discussion has been refactored slightly. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timmion Records

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

Current coverage fails WP:GNG Setreis (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions: 2013-03 ✗ delete
Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create, 2013-03 ✗ deleted
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already deleted as non-notable once. Has there been subsequent significant coverage? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they have been mentioned in many reliable sources since 2013, such as Billboard and El País. Whether the coverage is significant enough or not, I'm still not sure. MarioGom (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are a few promising sources, like this one in Rolling Stone and a this one in Billboard (which, granted, is related), as well as a few sources which look ok but which I'm not familiar with like Inner... but not quite enough to justify a stand-alone article. I'm hesitating to come in with a "weak delete," however, because I wonder what people have found when searching in Finnish? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: in Finnish I found mostly just mentions. However this (in the biggest music magazine of the country) is about the label. This (in the biggest daily newspaper) contains at least a few sentences as does this (financial newspaper). One should also search with "Timmion Cutting" because that's their brand name for manufacturing the physical records. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — If we are to treat this as an organization then it fails the notability threshold for organizations. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xenaverse

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

Another example of being de-proded w/o explanation nor improvement. No signs of notability per WP:NMEDIA, unsourced, no significant coverage found CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:48, 4 April 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 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alqi Bllako

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

If I were to make an educated guess I’d say this is a promotional autobiography. The subject of the of the article lacks in-depth significant in reliable sources independent of them. Although the article is unsourced at this point. A WP:BEFORE search turns back 0 reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable political candidate. Searching turns up only mentions in passing, such that he's an unelected candidate or brief mentions about his brother's business dealings like this one. Valenciano (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — borderline speedy, as there's no suggestion, even, of notability of any flavour, and certainly none established as the article is completely unsourced (and a search finds nothing, either). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject has not held any political role that would make him "inherently" notable in the absence of adequate reliable sourcing. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN, and is not a place where people are automatically entitled to have articles just because they have jobs. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing even close to showing notability. Wikipedia is not an alternate to LinkedIn to post resumes on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTLINKEDIN.--MadD (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajayendra Urmila Tripathi

Ajayendra Urmila Tripathi (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 activists, web programmer. No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I had a discussion with the page creator,Gocorona (talk · contribs), on my talkpage @ User talk:220 of Borg#Help me. They said "This person is a journalist, social media research programmer and social activist and works for Stop Acid attack".
"Stop Acid attack" is not mentioned on the Tripathi BLP page, I advised Gocorona to add it, hasn't. They don't seem to understand how to establish notability, despite me telling the how to, at least twice. They finished with "... will start a campaign against wikipedia on social media." WP:CIR. 220 of ßorg 05:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nota bene* A similarly named page less middle name, Ajayendra Tripathi, has been deleted twice before. See deletion log. 220 of ßorg 06:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Bataa Do

Ek Bataa Do (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 book. No significant coverage / book reviews from reliable sources. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a CSD G5 (created by sockpuppet of User:Zaid Zayd). Liz Read! Talk! 17:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahira Sharma

Mahira Sharma (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 person; article was attempted to be created twice in 2019 and once in 2020 and has been returned to draft space each time as non-notable MurielMary (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss China United Kingdom Pageant

Miss China United Kingdom Pageant (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 is an audition for Miss China Europe Pageant - which does not exist. Tagged as an advert since 2009. Created by User:Miss China United Kingdom Pageant. Before returns a deleted blogspot and youtube. Desertarun (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE, appears to be something that was planned but didn't happen and never reached the level of notability. FOARP (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Houshmand Dehghan

Houshmand Dehghan (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 notability - WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Serv181920 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very regretful delete - This man appears to be a prisoner of conscience and if I could save the article I would. The issue appears to be a dearth of instances of actual WP:SIGCOV. Possibly FA-language editors can do a better job that I? But sweeping through the GNews hits for his name in Perisan using machine translation doesn't turn anything up. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more independent coverage is found. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per all. Not enough coverage to pass GNG. Pilean (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable translator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As was noted in the last relist the keep participants do not actually show how this meets any notability guidelines. While I am sympathetic to the idea of using parallel discussions as a guide as to whether or not something should be nominated (i.e. if similar stuff repeatedly is kept don't nominate something) once a nomination is made there is an obligation to show how the topic qualifies for notability. As that was not done here while delete participants, to the extent that negatives may be proven, attempt to show how it does not qualify. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1983–84 South Midlands League

1983–84 South Midlands 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)

I don't see how this passes WP:GNG let alone WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - NSEASONS covers individual team seasons, it doesn't even mention seasons of a league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this league was step 8/9 of the pyramid? Where is the coverage of this individual season? Fails GNG from what I can see. GiantSnowman 19:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Eastern Counties Football League, Kent Football League, Essex Senior Football League, Combined Counties Football League they were at same level as South Midlands League and was a feeder to Isthmian League. Whee you delete South Midlands League, then you should another 10-12 leagues also delete. Read more about leagues of this level: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997–98 Kent Football League Denebleo 21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency – we have league season articles for leagues down to this level (as can be seen on {{1983–84 in English football}} – and per the outcome of the Kent League AfD. Number 57 14:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Number 57: Can I ask, does failing GNG on all those articles not concern you at all? All those lower leagues season articles fail GNG, I find it somewhat disturbing you want to keep those like that considering you're an admin and wikipedia is all about the notability of the subject, it feels like you're breaking the rules here to keep something you like! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt it does fail WP:GNG given the level of coverage similar level leagues get in the media today. Unless you've been through archives of relevant newspapers covering this season, I don't think you can definitively say this is the case. But as per my point above, I also believe it's important that Wikipedia is consistent in what it has articles on. As I think the Kent League AfD demonstrates, there is consensus that season articles on leagues at this level are valid (hence why there are numerous other articles on leagues at the same level in 1983–84). Rather than AfD individual articles, I would suggest that if you have an issue with the existence of such articles, you should start a more general discussion on where a cut-off should be. As both the leagues and clubs at this level are considered notable, I don't think its unreasonable that it follows that league seasons at this level are a valid content fork.
    • Also, I didn't note it in my response above, as ChrisTheDude states, NSEASONS is not a valid deletion rationale, because it applies to club seasons, not league seasons. Number 57 12:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment at the 85-86 AfD. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe that Number 57 demonstrates this to be useful to readers, that is, having a consistent set of such articles provides reader-friendly and -desired information that would be less convenient anywhere else. Ultimately, despite a bizarre section in a certain essay, this is what all our notability guidelines are intended to be, and indeed the only reason we should do anything at all. Or -- to speak of misapplied essays -- this is exactly the kind of thing the much-misunderstood WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says we should have. Vaticidalprophet 21:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence multiple, reliable sources are discussing this league. Eldumpo (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are no reliable sources presently giving enough coverage to this to have an independent article. Fails GNG. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 12:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Will relist one more time, but there is nothing at the moment in any of the keep votes to support gng, so am extending as a courtesy to those editors to present sources that satisfy gng rather than because there is insufficient consensus because at the moment the delete votes present the stronger argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice that the two for the prior seasons were kept at AfD whilst this keeps being relisted so for this to be deleted would be a bit of a clusterfuck. A grouped AfD here would have been far more useful here, but as there was consensus to keep the 84-85 and 85-86 season articles, the same ought to apply here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there needs to be a much wider discussion at WT:NSPORTS or WT:FOOTY or somewhere appropriate. I have serious doubts about whether any of the league season articles at this level actually can pass WP:GNG and nobody has put forward any reasonable argument that they do pass GNG. That being said, deleting one season in the South Midlands League when all the others exist and all the seasons for the other leagues at the same level exist, probably isn't the best way to go about establishing such consensus. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, a wider discussion is the way to go when you have a (large) set of articles with quite clearly defined boundaries. AfDing individual articles in the set is rarely a good way to start. I would suggest WT:FOOTY is the best place to have such a discussion, as league season articles are not covered by WP:NSPORTS. Number 57 09:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG and WP:NOTSTATS. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Number 57. Riteboke (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8VC

8VC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Venture capital corporation does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is a mix of non-independent sources, routine events (such as fundraising) and WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non notable organization that doesn’t meet WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see notable news publications. Yahoo and Business Wire are press releases. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several notable new publications, including CNBC, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal. There is also several points of notable coverage. 8VC is a VC fund with $3.5B AUM. It is clearly a notable business. Navigator1492
Comment I note that you have very few edits and that all are connected with either this company or that of Joe Lonsdale who is a partner with the topic company. Please disclose if you are a paid editor or if you have a connection the topic company (and possible conflict of interest), please see WP:COI. Also, "notable new publications" is not a criteria for establishing notability. Please read WP:NCORP and especially the section on "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Also be aware of WP:NOTINHERIT. If you still believe there are references that meet the criteria for establishing notability of the topic company, please post a link below. HighKing++ 12:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply WP:NCORP requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." That criteria is met with a Freightwaves publication about 8VC logistics investing and Tech Crunch article about 8VC's investment approach, among others.
Reply You haven't read ORGIND by the looks of things. For example the Freightwaves reference is written by ... Freightwaves. Who received investment from 8VC! So not an "independent" source, there is no Independence of the Author as they're "connected" to the topic company and fails the WP:ORGIND section of NCORP. Then the TechCrunch reference is based on information provided by the company and/or the company executives and it says this in the article. ORGIND says in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This reference fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 18:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Courtauld Institute of Art. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of faculty members of the Courtauld Institute

List of faculty members of the Courtauld Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should Wikipedia really maintain a list of something as fluid as the faculty of this institute? Page hasn't been updated since its inception eight years ago. Compare List of alumni of the Courtauld Institute of Art which seems much more stable and also more notable (also naming inconsistency). Regards CapnZapp (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CapnZapp (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the institute is notable and so are the faculty, then yes. And we wouldn’t want to just list current faculty, but also include former notable faculty and the list can annotate that status if verifiable. This list could probably be merged back to the parent article as it’s short, however. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the nom, a result of merge would be acceptable (once this page is deleted we can discuss the notability of the staff over at Talk:Courtauld Institute of Art). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the page is merged it would be redirected there, not deleted. postdlf (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enuff, User:Postdlf. CapnZapp (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an institution being notable does not in any way, shape or form mean the faculty are notable. If it did we would need complete faculty lists for every high school we have an article on. Down this path lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment is responding to a strawman that no one has asserted, and that's not what this list is. postdlf (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, I wouldn't mind deleting the list. Included in the list of reasons I would agree with are that it isn't getting timely updates, that we don't need a separate article, and that the faculty might not be notable in its own right. (But as I have already said, I'm okay with a merge outcome too, since we can always discuss the notability issue separately afterwards, so I do not intend to start an argument here.) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This list only includes faculty who are notable, every entry is bluelinked. And that's all we'd normally mention in the parent article unless we had an informational reason to mention anyone nonnotable (i.e., they were significant in the school's history or public perception in some way even if they did not merit their own article); we would not attempt to list all faculty. So that's why JPL's comment about high school faculty lists is completely off base, and I don't see how there's any notability issue to discuss. I also don't get what you mean by "timely updates", as we would not be trying to give a directory of just who is currently working there, rather a historic record of anyone notable who ever had regardless of if they still are. postdlf (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can discuss the difference between a list being notable and individual items being notable later. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant here. First, this page isn't about a list, the list is merely the method of presenting information/indexing articles, just as is Category:Academics of the Courtauld Institute of Art, which appears to be the corresponding category (and the contents of which suggest this list could be expanded by quite a bit). See WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP. And "list notability" (whatever you mean by that) is doubly irrelevant if it is merged to just a subsection in the parent article, but if we do have enough notable entries then it's justifiable to keep as a standalone WP:SPLIT even apart from its value as an index of articles. It's then a clear keep or merge. postdlf (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact I've said three times this isn't the right place for the notability discussion means I agree with you. List articles are rarely about a list? This is AfD, not CfD. I'm unsure what you mean by a "standalone SPLIT". Whether this list has any value is debatable, yes. Thank you for finalizing your not-votes. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See comment to postdlf above CapnZapp (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the institution page. Riteboke (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Courtauld Institute of Art as others have suggested for the reasons advanced above. We don't need a standalone page on this and it seems less likely to be maintained when it's separate from the institute's page. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United College of Engineering & Research

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

No evidence that this is a high visibility research institute. Apart from a few press releases, paid advertisement and primary sources, there is no RS to support WP:NSCHOOLS Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only thing out there about this is a few trivial name drops in a couple of articles that mentions teachers of the school and a school directory. None of which is enough to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. It doesn't help that there are references in the article either. So, this is a pretty clear delete IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. No votes to delete, nominator withdraws. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Víkarbyrgi

Víkarbyrgi (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 sourced at all. versacespacetalk to me 05:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. versacespacetalk to me 05:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although this village in the Faroe Islands no longer has permanent residents ([21]), Google Books shows mention of it in the 14th century ("Before the Black Death came and devastated the Faroe Islands, Víkarbyrgi in Suđuroy was one of the largest villages" [22]) and in discussion of early 20th century local politics [23]. I think WP:GEOLAND criterion 1 applies here. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Johansen 1963, p. 12 does seem to indicate that (a) it's not in Scotland, (b) sources can be found, (c) it was indeed populated back in the 1960s.
    • Johansen, Sámal (1963). "Suðuroy sunnara sysla". Foroya Landalaera (in Faroese). Torshavn: Foroya Skulabokagrunnur. OCLC 858367544.
  • Uncle G (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not being sourced is not a reason for deletion unless no sources can be found - a quick look at foreign language Wikipedia sites, especially Faroese, show this likely passes WP:GEOLAND. Needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 14:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AllyD's sources; this seems to be a legitimate GEOLAND-passing village. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep — @VersaceSpace, As Hog Farm already stated, id do you one better by pointing to the relevant guideline which is WP:NEXIST, & per NEXIST Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007: Thank you. I didn't understand the guideline when I first read it and nominated it, and I would like to withdraw my nomination but do not know how to. versacespacetalk to me 00:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Emmer

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

Only 1 source cited in the article and only 2 more articles found online... actually they were the same article published on 2 different websites. Topic does not constitute WP:BIO or adhere to policy guidelines as far as I can see. It looks like he was just a "good guy". Megtetg34 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mid level manager for the Disney organization. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hotjar

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

An article on this topic was speedily deleted under G11 and subsequently this version was created. The talk page sets out concerns with the use of sources, which are essentially passing mentions and interviews with the founder, stitched together to give the appearance of a substantive whole. Reviewed by Jikaoli Kol and recently unreviewed whin their UPE was discovered, it lacks in depth coverage by reliable sources and so fails WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can definitely see why it was deleted under G11. Envysan (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources do not appear to constitute significant coverage, rather, as the nominator says, passing mentions. I doubt this company meets NCORP. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article describing a company going about its business. There are some brief mentions of this among other tools, such as this, but I do not see the coverageneeded to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Northern Escapee (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Butler (entrepreneur)

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

Sources 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 come from websites that the topic owns and operates. I saw no mention of the topic in source 5 and only a trivial mention/comment in sources 6, 7 and 10. The sources reference his company mostly, and not him. The best article of the bunch is 11, and obviously 1 article about the topic is not nearly enough to constitute WP:BIO. Topic fails notability guidelines and the article can be seen as promotional material only.  Megtetg34 (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are not enough sources that are independent and reliable providing significant coverage to justify having an article on Butler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone (an IP address editor) has since added 10 additional sources since the AFD of this article, and re-worked the sources so my initial AFD summary looks incorrect. Regarding the additional 10 sources, the summary now is:
    • Source 3 - Trivial mention about flea markets in NY neighborhoods, with minor comments from topic.
    • Source 7 - article is about a building development the topic and others were involved in, not about the topic itself.
    • Source 12 - article mentions topic, his partner and other foodie business owners. No depth.
    • Source 13 - links to Chelsea Flea, no article mentioning the topic.
    • Source 14 - trivial mention of topic in paragraph 2, simply naming him as co-founder.
    • Source 15 - not a single mention of the topic.
    • Source 16 - trivial mention of topic 3 quarters down the page, simply naming him as co-founder.
    • Source 17 - not a single mention of the topic.
    • Source 18 - 20 second video speech where topic suggests people like to take pictures of their food whilst waving it around in front of the Empire State Building.
    • Source 20 - article covers the topic, but is from the college he graduated from which makes it a dependent source, not an independent source that would count towards WP:GNG.
    • Source 21 - article is a dead link, doesn't exist.

The topic has the majority of the coverage of his business enthralled in posts by the New York Times. If they are thought to be inlcuded by the article editors in an attempt to establish WP:GNG, please see WP:MULTSOURCES: The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher). No additional sources constituting depth of coverage independent sources have been found. Topic continues to fail requirements to meet WP:GNG. Megtetg34 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)  [reply]

  • Delete per nom and the findings above. Riteboke (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Group of Institutions

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

Did a clean up of the advertising cruft. The page fails WP:NSCHOOLS. Apart from press releases, paid advertising and primary sources, there are no RS. Creator appears to be a SPA. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 04:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure about this one, Times of India is clearly not just paid advertising/a press release (1 2 3). FOARP (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources, "Online assessment, video interview helps students beat Covid" and "Freshers welcomed at induction programme of United College" are based on press releases by the institution. The third source titled, "UGI Allahabad president Jagdish Gulati honoured" states that "65 hard working faculty were honoured". So none of the sources add notability to the private educational institution. Vikram Vincent 11:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From looking this over all that exists reference wise is a few press releases and otherwise extremely trivial coverage. There's nothing that would be up to muster for notability though. So, I'm going with delete for now. Unless someone can find WP:THREE good independent, in-depth references since I couldn't find any. If so, I'm more then happy to change my "vote" to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Persuaded by Vikram Vincent's analysis. FOARP (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Danny Roark

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

As with most twelve-year-olds, there's no sign of substantial coverage in reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Although the article asserts that he is "widely known", he would appear to be simply a run-of-the-mill child. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biographical article of a child with zero good sources cited. Content and deletion policy is a lot stronger in this area, and the burden of showing sources a lot more immediate. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if you search up his name, almost nothing comes up except for his Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.49.2 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This child is simply not notable. The claim is made that he wrote a book but it has no ISBN number. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I have grave doubts whether any 12-year-old would be notable, except possibly a king. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons already stated. I partially suspect that the Little Dany Roark article may be a Wikipedia Conflict of Interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landino1 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Absolutely nothing here is a reliable source that indicates notability. Apparently he wrote a self-published e-book. According to a Facebook page, he is associated with a gospel band that does not have an article of its own, which includes his father who, according to this article, has only been a Christian for four months, thus suggesting that the association with this band has been only of short duration. Also, a newspaper article showed a photo of him and his fourth-grade classmates when they went to a state park and learned about identifying trees. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: It would appear to be pretty heavily SNOWing. In light of the substantial BLP issues presented, I would encourage any roaming sysop to close this discussion sooner rather than later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jesus loves me too, but I don't need a wikipedia article. Nothing found to show him as being more important than a random 12 yr old. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one of the worst sourced and most engaged in over the top promotionalism articles I have seen. Having your name mentioned in a hyper local paper article on your school doing a fundraiser is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notability is not a requirement for GA and so it is entirely possible for an article that is (correctly) rated GA to be deleted. So whether or not an article is GA, or whether it should not be a GA because of failing a GA criteria like NOR, doesn't matter at AfD. In terms of the deletion discussion here, there is a consensus that sourcing exists that support notability for this song. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moments (One Direction song)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. Its coverage comes from only album reviews. Some very low chart entries. One interview with Ed Sheeran (song-writer) which falls under the "other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work" umbrella. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep This article is currently a GA status, surely it's notability was scrutinized when it was reviewed. Despite low chart entries, it charted on 3 different national charts and received Gold certification in Australia. That alone means it meets WP:NSONGS. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chart entries means that a song might be notable, not that it is. So it doesn't mean that meets WP:NSongs. Furthermore, GA status doesn't grant any song notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 3 GA reviews, one of which the article failed, are on the talk page and it can be seen that sourcing simply didn't enter into it at all, except for the failing review. Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Up All Night--album reviews may be sufficient for standalone song articles if they discuss the song specifically in-depth (usually within a paragraph). For this song, however, album reviews only each cover one-two sentences regarding this song, which turns out to be trivial coverage. Charting and certifications are only cherry on the top, not the determinant factor of notability. 05:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    • That is not to mention that the Entertainment Weekly and the MTV News sources, which I did a small spotcheck, do not mention this particular song anywhere. A potential case of WP:OR. HĐ (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Up All Night, as the reviews are in the context of album reviews which doesn't establish notability per WP:NSONG. The only thing that seems to make the song distinct from coverage of the rest of the album is that it was written by Ed Sheeran, but the sources for that are not enough to satisfy notability on their own, as much of it is as a trivial mention in discussing the group's debut album or a passing mention in an interview by Sheeran. Nangears (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wow, I've just been thinking lately about the issue of quality-assessed articles being AfDed and redirected on the basis of narrow interpretations of SNGs, and my regret in abetting it, and I run into this. Suppose it's time to put my money where my mouth is.

    The thing about notability guidelines (G or S) is that their intent is to provide a shortcut for "Could you write a decent article about this?". Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is a line drawn not because it sounds cool or respectable but because an article without that is going to be either a pile of puffery or a very sad stub. The extension of this is that if an article is not only 'decent' but 'in good enough shape to pass our quality review processes', there are three possibilities: it has enough coverage, it's a hoax, or it's a bizarre edge case of the 2012 tour of She Has a Name sort. (The second and third cases shouldn't be passing said processes, but they do, and that's another discussion for another day.) "GA/FA don't assess notability" is a red herring -- they don't check an article fits the XNG because the XNG is the guideline as to whether an article complex enough to hit GA/FA can be written (indeed it's the guideline as to whether an article complex enough to hit "the more respectable end of Start" can be written).

    I look at this, which has passed GA review, and I find myself agreeing with that assessment. It's not a topic of particular interest to me, but it's a respectable, solid article that hits the beats it needs. It's able to cover a broad swathe of areas of interest to readers without falling into puffery, exaggeration, or any other habits of a stretched-thin article on an insufficient topic. I spot-checked the reviews and found them acceptable even if sparse; one devoted much of a paragraph to the song, which seems "acceptable for NSONGS". The Ed Sheeran coverage doesn't seem trivial, either. As to the claim of OR, I removed one reference that was simply duplicating another, and the other one accused of it clearly and obviously references the song by its lyrics -- which is exactly what the article says.

    Essentially -- "if this wasn't notable, the article wouldn't look like this". Is that circular? No, it's exactly what XNGs are designed to do -- screen out articles that would never be able to be improved to the level of a thousand decent words. It is a complete misinterpretation to weaponize SNGs for the deletion (via redirection or otherwise) of GAs, and a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be building (including via curation and the removal of unacceptable content) an encyclopedia, because an article that has distinguished itself as high-quality is not unacceptable content barring extenuating circumstances (as described above). The purpose of XNGs is to serve the project, not the other way around. If an SNG prescribes that high-quality articles should be deleted, then the problem is not with those articles. Vaticidalprophet 04:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Vaticidalprophet: This shouldn't have passed GA as not only the article doesn't pass WP:NSongs but it shows a lot of original research. GA doesn't grant notability to any article, the reviewer at the time might not take a closer look. Truth be told, nowhere in the GA criteria sais it needs you as a reviwer to check for notability. It clearly states on WP:NSongs "coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability", there is nothing in this article besided reviews in the context of an album. To begin with it has to be multiple, not one review (with a pragraph) and Ed Sheeran is an interested third party as he is one of the writers of the song, "This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise" you haven't read WP:NSongs like you should. The problem is this article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already brought up, and disagreed with, the OR claim. "This should not have passed GA" is your opinion; it is not mine. "NSONGS says a quality and unproblematic article is inappropriate for the project" is a problem for NSONGS. (There are other SNGs with the opposite issue.) Vaticidalprophet 20:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Vaticidalprophet: It is problematic as there is a conflict of interest betweeen the songwriter and the song he wrote. Needs to be a independent source. It is not a problem for NSONGS, it is a problem this type of articles exist. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is also the opinion of the one GA reviewer who looked at sources, and failed it. Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. There's still no clear consensus on whether WP:GNG or WP:NSONG should be followed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find myself entirely in agreement with Vatricidal Prophet. I think that AfD has been ignoring the spirit of deletion and notability guidelines for some time in favor of wikilawyering and "well technically..." (and don't even get me started on "give me three sources..."), and nominating a GA article just seems to be almost a parody of AfD. I don't know if I've ever heard of this song, it's certainly not my preferred style (I think Rock & Roll peaked in 1975 with | Born to Run and everything since is irrelevant), but I am impressed with the article itself, that people were able to source the background and compositional style of the song. The rest of the article quite literally explains the notability by covering its critical reception, charting, and live performances. As I said, I couldn't care less about this band and this song, but I wish we had more editors and articles like this. Do not nominate GA articles for deletion! If you disagree with the GA nomination or the quality of the article, use the talk page. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:NSONG. Independent sources that should cover ONLY the song, they are album reviews. Its not about being GA or not...if it wasn't GA it would be on the same spot. Ga doesn't grant notability to any article, independent sources do. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the GA process, or perhaps the process is different for different types of articles or different Wikiprojects. Isn't an evaluation of the sources a significant part of the GA process? In Wikiproject Medicine, MEDRS gets repeated so many times during a GA process that you almost think it's someone's username, for example. Now, perhaps you disagree with the GA result, but I am looking at the result of the process and the consensus that resulted. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperion35: I'm not trying to get a GA demoted, just simply showing this article its not notable as it lacks coverage of independent sources. This was promoted back in 2012, a lot of things have changes including the criteria...therefore we have WP:NSONG. The first GA reviewer who looked at sources, failed it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why you trying to save an article that fails WP:NSongs. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarioSoulTruthFan, I'm neutral when it comes to notability of non-single songs. Honestly, there's nothing wrong if the people who voted to keep the article agree with the reasonings of Vaticidalprophet and Hyperion35 that this song meets WP:GNG. So, it's best to respect their views than to waste your time arguing with them. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 07:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:WHYN and doesn't fall under WP:NOT. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vaticidalprophet and Hyperion35. You can lawyer it all day long, but this remains a respectable article which belongs in our encyclopedia. --Muhandes (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wellp. That's a solid consensus if I ever saw one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games notable for negative reception

AfDs for this article:
List of video games notable for negative reception (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 is a POV fork when "notable for" is an inherently subjective description (rendering it inappropriate for an article title in the first place per WP:Neutral point of view) plus people will impose their own criteria for what is/isn't worth including. Any details on poor reviews are better for the games' individual pages. That's better having than a compilation of cherry-picked titles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's in fact much discussion on on the talk page (/its archives) about why it's called what it's called and even more discussion about the actual criteria for it. In fact the article isn't actually about the "considered worst" games, the title reflects the content. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, it could be renamed to "List of video games known for negative reception" or "List of video games noted for negative reception" (which would be more encyclopedic without editorializing), but that wouldn't resolve the issue of how selective the page is. Whoever decided on the page's current "List of video games notable for negative reception" title made a big mistake and should've gone with a different choice. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even going beyond NLIST, there is notable interest in the "worst games of all time" eg The Guardian, GamesRadar, for example. Of course that's a POV title and thus located to here. Further, the list is careful to avoid games that are expected to be bad (like shovelware or mobile games), and thus the list is more curated to games that have a known reputation for being poor, and not simply because of their low review score or the like; hence why it is called "games notable for negative reception" --Masem (t) 06:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to be clear, those of us that edit that page are careful about what is added to it, as to avoid that cherry picking. We're trying to go by sourcing that affirms the intent of the list, and while there are games that are considered bad or worse out there becuase of low review scores, we don't include those just because of low scores - we're looking for long-term reputation as bad games, which helps to make sure this list says on topic and not cherry picking. --Masem (t) 06:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasonings provided by editors who have commented before me. The only rationale I could identify from the nominator's rationale is, I don't like it. Haleth (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all my rationale. I was basing it off of WP: Content forking#Point of view (POV) forks (WP:POVFORK). The title just emphasizes this page's biased nature even more (i.e. only picks certain games that got poor reviews and not others even when many games not included also had unfavorable reception). Keeping it around (especially with the current name) is just enabling neutrality problems. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it's not a fork. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • SNUGGUMS, according to the content guideline you linked to, a POV fork is defined as another version of the article or another article on the same subject. Could you point us to what you believe to be the original or legitimate version of this article, or another article somewhere in Wikipedia about the same subject? And going by your own definition of a biased article, you may also find List of video games considered the best to be unacceptable, since the contents are also defined based on an arbitrary set of inclusion criteria set by editors themselves (minimum of 6 lists by 6 different publications) which you decried as biased in your rationale and subsequent responses. Your thoughts? Haleth (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not to delve too far into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory, but that other page at least uses some attribution within its title (signifying it is what critics consider top-tier games). A minimum of six publications sounds random. Focusing back on this list, I'm not sure where exactly it first was supon off from aside from somebody compiling games that overall got poor reviews. Any instance it may have been more legitimate must've been before September 2012 (where its current name was implemented), and that was also problematic with its WP:EDITORIALIZING (namely the "notably negative reception" bit) in the opening sentence. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am aware that you don't like to discuss further per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it is a valid question because in your rationale, you are alleging that it is a POV content fork, which means it is forked from another existing article to give undue weight to a point of view, so I have asked you to point us to another article which it is allegedly forked from. Citing an older version of the article which is more agreeable with your subjective view on what constitutes a legitimate inclusion criteria that is compliant with Wikipedia guidelines or policies, in fact gives other editors more reason to believe that the issue is of an editorial nature. It is inappropriate to deal with an editorial dispute by subjecting the article to an AfD. Haleth (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • For what it's worth, that old diff I linked was preferable to what we have now when it didn't generally exclude titles based on category, developer, or systems they were available on. By removing the one editorializing sentence and going back to a previously used title of "List of video games considered the worst" (which provided some attribution for the view on these listings), that would be something better to work with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let's compare to List of films considered the worst, which has similar criteria to omit certain classes of films and focus only on those that have professional production. This list's criteria that omits indie games, tie-in licensed games, and phone games is the same type of thing since these are treated with the same "lack of respect" in terms of proper coverage in RSes as amateur-produced films - meaning that maybe exceptionally one of these will be called out, but most of the time they slip under the radar and while you may get one or two sources that note that game as bad, it is again unfair to include that among games with numerous sources. Now the question is, why not name this list "List of video games considered the worst" and that said, not all these games are necessary "the worst" but that they do carry strong negative perceptions, and as we know there are games with even worst scores/critical reviews, that would be a flawed title. --Masem (t) 16:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • While "List of video games considered the worst" might not be the best name (there's the idea of "List of video games noted for negative reception"), I'm not going to pretend the one currently used is neutral or any better. It also doesn't feel appropriate to leave out entries based on characteristics that are irrelevant to critics' opinions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per others. The deletion rationale is inherently flawed, as wide critical agreement is anything but POV.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above. Whether a game is bad is subjective, but there is no disputing the fact that all the games in the article's list are known primarily for their poor quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.49.2 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I would like to see more refs based on real "official" ( = based secondary sources) lists of games with negative reception (article/lists about more than one or two games); otherwise this will always be OR to some extent, even if the editors do their best to define and "enforce" the criteria. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whilst I understand what you are trying to say, these games have been severely criticised by multiple sources, and the topic as a whole appears to be notable enough, at least to me. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per some recent comments, I suggest a Speedy Keep since it is basically SNOW at this point. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. No idea what the nom means by the list being a "POV fork" (it's not), this comes off as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:DINC. The topic of "worst games ever made" is clearly notable, as evident by the amount of proper citations both in the article and what can be found through Google and the WikiProject's custom reliable source search engine. Namcokid47 16:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case I hadn't already made it obvious, I was saying this is a POV fork based on how it involves people picking and choosing what they think should be highlighted for their negative reception. The sheer number of references isn't my concern, and as I mentioned above, it is NOT an WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance. If one wants to focus on a "worst games" topic, then having a page titled "List of video games considered the worst" would at least be more neutral. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But again, it's not a fork. It simply isn't. It's a list that passes WP:LISTN and has a clearly defined inclusion criteria decided by consensus, as per WP:LISTCRIT. -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria used is questionable when the lead openly admits that this tends to omit mobile games, indie games, and "licensed tie-in games for movies or television shows". It comes off as a "those games don't matter" sort of ordeal. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're free to challenge the criteria, of course. Still not a deletion rationale. -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the reason we generally omit those games is because they don't get wide coverage but may have one or two reviews that call them bad, and it would be unfair to list those alongside games that have multiple reviews and other RS sources that clearly outside the negative reception of the game. Sometimes one of those exclusions will make it (like Superman 64) but this is the exception, not the rule. --Masem (t) 20:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the others. Bad video games are notable and sometimes they have really interesting stories as to why the game turned out in the end. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Faulty deletion rationale. List is not a fork. List clearly meets WP:LISTN. It is not an arbitrary list of items, it has a defined inclusion criteria on the talk page per WP:LISTCRIT. AFD is not cleanup. AFD is not a venue to argue that the page title may need changed. I fail to see how "negative reception" is less neutral than "worst games" besides. -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am genuinely confused by this nomination. Notability is not subjective, or at least that is a central assumption of AfD in general (or at least, we assume that notability can be a matter of consensus). The list appears to have, as one of its primary criteria, a requirement that these games be notable specifically for wide RS coverage of their negative reception. In other words, it's not obscure games or bad games, but games that were prominent or anticipated or controversial or for some other reason received widespread coverage, and that coverage was negative. That strikes me as being literally the definition of the sort of lists that we want. If there is an issue with the title, or an issue with the criteria for inclusion, or an issue over whether certain other titles should be included, those are properly issues for the talk page. In fact, I may start following that talk page because I can imagine that this would lead to some excellent and fascinating discussion. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Panini!🥪 13:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:SNOW. JOEBRO64 16:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also want to clarify the concept of Forking. Forking involves taking a parent topic, and creating a new article about some part of that topic, for the purposes of getting around POV or Undue Weight or other restrictions. Often this is done when we have an article on a scientific topic, where there is general consensus among reliable sources in ths scientific community, but where there is some "controversy" or disagreement in public discourse, perhaps due to political or religious views. Wikipedia guidelines normally mandate placing a small section near the end to note that such beliefs exist, where their due weight allows only a few neutral sentences, if that. Sometimes editors get around this by Forking, creating a separate "controversies" page, where they can give undue weight to fringe views and pretend that they are merely "covering the controversy" rather than pushing a specific POV. This is what the rules on Forking exist to prohibit, the use of forked articles for the purpose of evading Wikipedia guidelines. In this case, the games on this list already have to meet a standard that is actually more stringent than Wikipedia would require simply to include a game on any list, therefore it is not and cannot be a Fork from some other list of video games for the purposes of evading Wikipedia guidelines. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:LISTN.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's a long history of this article, and similar ones, being kept at AFD. As others have noted, this nomination is baffling and ill-conceived. It should have already been abundantly clear that articles like this need fixing, not blowing up. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All of the games on this list are considered notable enough for their own list, and the old title calling them the "worst games ever" would be innaccurate; yes, many of these games like Big Rigs and E.T. 2600 are definately fitting for a "worst" list, but this list covers games that caused effects in the gaming industry (i.e., Star Wars Battlefront 2 '17). AlexField290 (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a POVFORK as the nom claimed it to be. If they think there are issues about the inclusion criteria they should propose changes in its talk page. "Worst game of all time" has been and always will be a valid topic. enjoyer|talk 02:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- not 'speedy', that's a separate thing to the clause being invoked, but it sure does look like a snowstorm out here. I wouldn't usually comment on an AfD this overwhelming, but I ran into it while looking at the article and was so shocked I recused myself from the reader role back to the editor one. Vaticidalprophet 04:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If we have "list of games considered best" and "list of movies considered worst", I feel it wouldn't be redundant to have "video games known for bad reviews" Sergei zavorotko (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have lists of worst other types of media, so why not video games? Also, meets WP:NLIST. Melmann 11:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW. This clearly isn't going to go anywhere, and I really don't see the point of just outright detonating the article because it has some problems. Maybe a page move would work better? Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A page move would certainly be an improvement. It would only fix part of the problem, though. After that's carried out, there's still an issue of cherry-picking among unfavorably reviewed games on a dubious basis. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As several people have pointed out, disagreements over issues like inclusion criteria are best dealt with on the article's talk page. AfD would only make sense if the inclusion criteria did not comply with existing notability criteria, but in this case the list's inclusion criteria incorporate and are more stringent than the GNG. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This list includes only video games that are notable enough to be considered "bad" games by multiple reliable sources, not by few people without reliable sources. There are plenty of "bad" games around the internet, but many of them aren't notable enough by multiple media to be included in this list. As long the games included in this list are notable, it meets WP:NLIST. Stylez995 (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matchpoint NYC

Matchpoint NYC (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:MILL and WP:NORG. Promotional article for a health club, sources do not establish any notability. Rogermx (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our Power

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM. While released by a notable label and featuring notable musicians, I can't find any evidence that the album itself is notable; it doesn't seem to get better than this passing mention. Lennart97 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although I'm the creator here, I did so at a very different time in wikihistory — once upon a time, the only notability claim a compilation album had to have was that it had notable artists on it, the end, and nothing else was necessary beyond that. That's no longer the case, however: an album now has to have much stronger evidence of notability, such as awards or chart performance or WP:GNG-worthy critical attention, and I can confirm that this one just doesn't clear the tighter standards that apply in 2021. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Above, Bearcat is an experienced article creator and is knowledgeable about music notability guidelines, so his analysis is convincing. I also can find no evidence that the album was noticed by reliable media sources, and it seems to have only been discussed insignificantly by the participants in the associated charity drive. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I found three mentions on ProQuest from 2006–07, but they're only 3 sentences each. The best of them is from Maclean's; Vol. 120, Iss. 8, (Mar 5, 2007): page 87. on their website at SOME PRETTY POWERFUL MUSIC. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the creator of the article agrees this no longe meets the standards for article creation. The sources pointed out don't go in depth regading the album. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkman Concrete

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

Despite the bogus claim to notability, a WP:BEFORE search doesn’t seem to substantiate this, as all I could see are user generated, self published & unreliable sources. I did see this source but it is insufficient to demonstrate the organization satisfies WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a few additional sources. Krazytea(talk) 22:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be sufficient independent sources - and its been going a long time. sources dont have to be online. Rathfelder (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder, yes Rathfelder you are very much correct that sources don’t have to be online, and I agree to that but the problem is even when I tried other means to find RS, the sources I observed do not seem to discuss the organization with in-depth significant coverage that would be required by WP:NCORP thus I came to the conclusion that this must be an archetype example of bare notability. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing important found. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem to have much credible citations. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_April_4&oldid=1018066451"