Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 5

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

The result was delete. Consensus determined that being in multiple notable bands does not equate to demonstrable notability. ✗plicit 07:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Herrera

R. J. Herrera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Two of the four sources are dead and the other two are passing mentions. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. May be the member (or touring musician) of multiple bands, but that has not resulted in any meaningful press for the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral-this is really borderline...he was, after all, in a very notable band for seven years...but at the same time, I don't find much about him..this is not like most Menudo members for example or The Beatles where there are multiple articles about each member individually....however, as I said, he was in it for seven years, which means he was probably on music videos and etc...Antonio Guevos de Acero Martin (que fue?) 06:29, March 28, 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep changed to Weak Delete I, too, am troubled by the seemingly non-existence of RS recognition that is independent of one of the multiple groups he is associate with, but isn't one of the automatic criteria for WP:MUSIC notability to have been a member of at least two notable bands/ensembles? This guy has been in three. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no such automatic criteria. The criteria reads that the the subject may be not that the subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. That being the case, I struck weak keep above and changed to weak delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we need independent sources to show notability, and they are lacking here. There is no other guideline that trumps the need for independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BAND: "[...] or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". He's been a member of Suicidal Tendencies and Luicidal. --FMSky (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is he reasonably prominent? Do you have sources to support that claim? It seems to me that he was just a band member, not a prominent one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We also now have a circular argument: he was in two notable bands, with Uncle Slam being the second, and in that AfD it was argued that because Herrera being in that band, that article was kept because we have multiple notable musicians in it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete two passing mentions doesn't warrant a standalone article. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Riteboke (talk) 07:26, 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Losliya Mariyanesan

Losliya Mariyanesan (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 article still fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR (one of the reason proposed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (2nd nomination)). Apart from participating in the reality tv show Bigg Boss (Tamil TV series), the subject is barely noticeable. No films have been released yet. Most of the television work listed in the article corresponds to special/guest appearance. I request to create a third AFD discussion to get a consensus on the noticeability. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:5C0:2EF:B11A:C8BA (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete she is still a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep News anchor on the main Tamil-language TV channel in Sri Lanka; lead role in a notable film. Furius (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom -still fails WP:NACTOR. Appearing in a reality television show doesn’t satisfy the notability criteria. No notable film roles either (noting Friendship has yet to be released and is borderline notable). Dan arndt (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No good coverage available to pass for NACTOR. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gives main information about person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.86.194 (talk) 19:22, April 7, 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article shows important and key points about this person such as films and television shows they appear in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal.Choudary2 (talk • contribs) 23:51, April 8, 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR, article is highly promotional "rose to fame"? , sources are weak and don't support notability requirements Ravensfire (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it's very probably that 58.108.86.194 and Bilal.Choudary2 are the same editor - the overlap is just about perfect. Ravensfire (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: completely agree with previous arguments for deletion. It appears as if the creator of the page simply goes through the list of participants on Big Boss and adds articles of every person who has ever been on the show.-- Microhierax (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with above. Fails WP:NACTOR. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I concur with Microhierax's observation. There is another article created by the same user for another Big Boss contestant, which also fails NACTOR. The corresponding afd discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shariq Hassan 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:690E:881A:67B:3FF1 (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that Romil.Choudary and Bilal.Choudary2 are the same, the former created a series of Bigg Boss contestant articles Som Shekar, Aranthangi Nisha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:690E:881A:67B:3FF1 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable actor as per Wikipedia norms. Behind the moors (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails to meet WP:NACTOR.Riteboke (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Büşra Demirörs

Büşra Demirörs (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 appearances that qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL found at TFF; recent seasons in the third tier give little confidence that the player will ever pass the SNG.

My searches, including a search of Turkish sources, yielded no WP:SIGCOV. Only passing mentions in Haber 46, Akdeniz Manset and Gun Haber were found. No evidence that Demirörs meets WP:GNG, which is absolutely required for anyone that does not pass the SNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, Groundhog day, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't see enough coverage available to pass for GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL--Kemalcan (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with all of the above Less Unless (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 17:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with everyone above (fails GNG and NFOOTBALL). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:48, 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. There is a clear consensus here that the subject is not-notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Cadzow

Alma Cadzow (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 significant coverage. Non-notable radio announcer. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have found a couple of mentions, but the coverage is not significant. Fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no reliable sources for notability. Behind the moors (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing significant about this individual for an standalone article. Riteboke (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:20, 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 merge to Horta. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L'Horta

L'Horta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the linked entries mention "L'Horta". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mergeto Horta, where none of these seem to be mentioned. PamD 08:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those Hortas appear to take the definite article. —--Pontificalibus 13:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And they're all WP:partial title matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Valencian Community. It's clear from the 20-or-so mentions in Enwiki that "L'Horta" usually refers to a place in this region. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, shouldn't it be Horta of Valencia rather than the much broader Valencian Community? — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Catalan Wikipedia which shows that all the articles listed here could or should be renamed to begin “L’Horta...” ---Pontificalibus 13:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not the Catalan Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not saying keep because they have kept, rather keep because we’ve spelt our article titles wrongly.—--Pontificalibus 18:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're not spelled incorrectly in English. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: A simple case where a disambiguation page only containing articles named "Horta" should be merged to the disambiguation page Horta. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Horta. Riteboke (talk) 07:29, 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Goulding

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

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

Taking to AfD after 12 years in CAT:NN. The sources I could find were mainly unreliable. I don't think he passes WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only thing I found was this and that’s not enough to support a stand alone bio. Mccapra (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No good coverage available to pass for GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have found no IRS and thus no SIGCOV. Less Unless (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable Devokewater 17:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet notability. Only one citation. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:40, 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daytona Sports Cars

Daytona Sports Cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Taking this to AfD after 12 years in CAT:NN. I couldn't find evidence - in article or in general search - that this meets criteria for stand-alone article, or that there is a good merge/redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with the nominator. Can't find info on them. The website is also down, so probably out of business. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I looked at this too and concluded it wasn’t notable. I did think there was probably a decent redirect target somewhere but quickly got lost in the tangle of different designers, builders and models so thought I’d leave that job to someone more familiar with this field. So there may be an ATD but I agree it’s not notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if no redirect target seems viable. Mccapra (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 07:30, 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 per WP:SNOW; nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine J. Thompson

Katherine J. Thompson (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:NBIO. No claims of notability. No significant coverage. One sources is an interviews, others are primary sources. Rogermx (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article creator per WP:PROF#C3 (fellow of a major academic society for which this is a significant honor, the American Statistical Association), as I already suggested to the nominator in removing their previous prod. The nominator appears to have failed to have even considered this suggestion seriously, and as a result the nomination is seriously flawed by using the wrong notability criterion (should be WP:PROF, not WP:GNG). Note that the primary nature of the sources is not relevant for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Low citation count and no GNG coverage, but the subject still appears to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC#3 as a fellow of the ASA. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although GS cites are low WP:Prof#C3 is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep/Improve As per above. I added a few cites to better describe the work she does at the census. Jessamyn (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Per WP:NPROF using primary sources is not an issue here. Also, please do WP:BEFORE. --hroest 00:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to being ASA Fellow, she has served as President of the ASA Section on Government Statistics. Ebony Jackson (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As nominator, I will bow to consensus and remove XFD. Did not see anything in the sources that said the subject was an academic, it simply listed her as a statistician who manages a government department. I could also ask if there is a list of scholarly societies whose membership gives someone a free pass to notability. Thanks to everyone for educating me on this and for upgrading this article. Rogermx (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not membership, it is fellowship. Anyone can join the ASA, but becoming a fellow requires significant accomplishment. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as passes WP:NPROF and seems nom has withdrawn. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:16, 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 merge to Tustin, California. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tustin Police Department

Tustin Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per my PROD reasoning: "See WP:CORP. A local police department that does not have any real inherent notability."

The creator of the page reverted the PROD, claiming that "the department is "notable" due to the city presence and provides more information beyond the City of Tustin Wikipedia page" (reasoning that could be applied to any police department) and that "the department was also the first to introduce a Pursuit-rated tracker system in Southern California", which is a very specific thing to be first at. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Tustin, California. Suburban police department is not independently-notable. KidAd • SPEAK 22:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Tustin, California as per above. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Tustin, California: per others.--vote by Alcremie (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Tustin. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:42, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Kay

Grant Kay (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 was merged to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players when nom'd for deletion in 2014, as that page is a repository for "not yet notable" prospects. Now, he's playing for independent baseball teams, with little chance of meeting WP:NBASE, and in spite of those few links I put in the 2014 AfD, he does not appear to meet WP:GNG either. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for baseball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: I don't think he meets GNG (and certainly doesn't meet NBASEBALL), but I did want to point out the best sources I did find. Probably passing mentions, but worth flagging nonetheless: [1] [2] [3] Go Phightins! 21:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable minor league baseball player, the sources found appear to be routine coverage (especially the blog). SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't see enough coverage available to pass for GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (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 22:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adata Needle

Adata Needle (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 per WP:NBOOK, was redirected to the Author, had been reverted by the Creator CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BOOKCRIT also, written like a an advert. Chirota (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its a plain advert. Should be G11'd. scope_creep^Talk 10:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'd also back a WP:SPEEDY. --Microhierax (talk) 10:54, 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. As pointed out by a number of editors, passing an SNG is irrelevant if an article doesn't pass GNG. Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obaidullah Sarwar

Obaidullah Sarwar (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 in Urdu/English newspapers. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask which newspapers you checked for this routine check? You've had a number in the past which have been significant fails, where I've been able to

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This was a good example of what can happen when articles get written exclusively from scorecard data, and WP:WHYN. I have rewritten the article and removed the invented narrative. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Has played 5 FC games passing him for WP:NCRIC, but no coverage. Sources may exist offline and in Pakistani sources but I couldn't find any in a search. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but limited coverage, is redirected/deleted. As he has played for two different sides, there isn't a suitable WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with five first class matches he passes WP:NCRIC. No information is provided by the nominator as to why he would not be able to pass WP:GNG eventually, in line with the criteria for WP:ATHLETE, as set out in the FAQ at the top of that guideline: The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist... Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find. The nominator should provide detailed evidence of which precise sources he has checked, rather than just stating "nothing in Urdu/ English newspapers"- which newspapers, from which dates? User:Störm has been consistently failing to provide evidence of sufficient checking of sources; indeed, given the number of AfD nominations made by this user, it is in my view impossible- even if he spent 168 hours per week on it- to have done sufficient checks, including those of hardcopy content. On several articles he has nominated, I have done my own subsequent checks, and there is additional coverage which has neither been included in the article, nor referenced by the editor in question. This type of handwaving at checks, which is designed to provide a rationale for deletion where none exists, just isn't acceptable from any editor. DevaCat1 (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Such demands far exceed WP:BEFORE and are unreasonable; if you have issues with the conduct of the nominator, take it to WP:ANI. Please clarify that these sources you have found are not simply more databases, scorecards and passing mentions. If they do constitute significant coverage, then please add them (and the additional content they provide) to the article(s) so everyone is able to evaluate them. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) DevaCat1, please search and prove me wrong. I found this in my before which I don't think proves his notability. Störm (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a total and complete failure of GNG. Articles like this prove that we need to scrap the cricket guidelines, as has been said over and over. Wikipedia is not cricketpedia, and biographical articles need to have substances which these lack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage, only wide ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. This trumps the trivial pass of WP:NCRIC, which has proven to be a very poor guide to the existence of coverage in cases such as this, where there are few known matches and no performances of note. No suitable redirect target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NCRICKET and WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, the only source fails WP:SPORTCRIT, I can find no other available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 12:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note redirecting to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers could be a valid option per established precedent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has played more matches for Sialkot (3 to 2), while I feel a redirect would be confusing here because of this List of Sialkot cricketers also exists. Personally I wouldn't redirect because of this. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NCRIC. Riteboke (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG. Obviously failing GNG should be enough for deletion even if it marginally passes WP:NCRICJackattack1597 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- fails GNG. This is another in the seemingly endless parade of match scorecards inflated into faux-biographies. Reyk _YO! 10:58, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Moguel Hernández

Daniel Moguel Hernández (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. As a first-team manager, he has at most coached a Mexican 3rd division team. As a player, he seems to have played 11 games for Monterrey in the Mexican 1st tier, but I can't find any source to confirm this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is not adequate sourcing to show a passing of GNG which is the absolute minimum for any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I added some sources in the article, hoping it helps to approve the notability rules. My best regards! SputnikXX (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SputnikXX: Thanks for the additions. However, the only thing that would make him notable per WP:NFOOTY is if his 1994 spell at Monterrey were sourced. How do you know he has 11 caps? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nehme1499: His participation with Mexico U-23 could make him notable? I got the caps from this source: https://futbol-mexicano.fandom.com/es/wiki/José_Moguel#Trayectoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by SputnikXX (talk • contribs) 02:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SputnikXX: Nope, he has to play (or manage) either for a senior national team, or in a fully professional league. Since you wrote the article, where did you find his playing career? Where did you see that he has played 11 games for Monterrey in 1994? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nehme1499: I took as reference this source: https://futbol-mexicano.fandom.com/es/wiki/José_Moguel#Trayectoria, I considered relevant to create this article because this former footballer has a long career as a manager with about 20 years and also because of the popularity and relevance that he has in his native city, being the first footballer from Cancún that played in Liga MX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SputnikXX (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SputnikXX: Unfortunately, fandom.com is not a reliable source. It's important to note that the article says that he only played for the "affiliate" teams of Monterrey, in the Primera A and Segunda Division. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: But still the Primera A is considered a fully professional league, right? No matter the fact that he played in an affiliate team. SputnikXX (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SputnikXX: True, but we need to be able to source the fact that he actually played games. Maybe he just played friendly/unofficial games, or just trained with the team? Who knows. Ideally we would need a source saying "Hernandez played x games in the Primera A with Monterrey B (or whatever it was called). Also, I can't seem to find any Monterrey affiliate team in the Segunda Division/Primera A during the 1990s, so that's also an issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. The claim of multiple appearances in the Mexican top flight is enough to confer notability - but it is not verified. GiantSnowman 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOCCER Dr Salvus 09:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSOCCER. Riteboke (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per norm. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:23, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saurav Das

Saurav Das (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 of notability. He appears to be an actor but mentions are just that. No reliable and independent sources discuss him in any way that conveys notability. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should no longer be listed on this page. Please list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers instead." Kolma8 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No sigcov thus failing GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't see enough coverage available to pass for GNG. GooeyMitch (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No main roles found. Failing wikipedia notability guidelines. Behind the moors (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:NACTOR. Riteboke (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable --Devokewater 16:37, 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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hands Across the Bay

Hands Across the Bay (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 organisation. Superficial / routine coverage in local news only. The only in-depth coverage is the Fox News interview, but as an interview it isn't independent coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• G11. --DePlume (talk) 20:12, 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 22:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kachin United F.C.

Kachin United 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)

No sources, made a cursory search and didn't find any. Tagged non-notable in March 2020, no sources/information added. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Tried to look up some sources for the team and when the team doesn't even have a website for that team and barely any resources, that is a problem. HawkAussie (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater 17:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources provided and nothing else can be found. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:42, 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 07:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Event symmetry

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

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

Per Talk:Event symmetry, this is an incoherent WP:SYNTH of unrelated topics that is overwhelmingly background information and does not clearly or accurately explain what this topic is. Summary:

• Nonsense that is mostly background information and gives a nonsensical conclusion that the equations governing the laws of physics must be unchanged when transformed by any permutation of spacetime events — which means that all scalar fields are uniform. Uses a soap bubble analogy in an unencyclopedic manner and ends by making an OR connection between the article topic and John Stachel's proposed principle of maximal permutability that equivalent objects of the same kind are exchangeable.
• A non-notable fringe theory of quantum gravity, which is cited entirely to primary sources, along with similarly non-notable theories absed on random graphs.
• A poorly explained notion of diffeomorphism invariance applied to a matrix model of M-theory. This section incorrectly juxtaposes D0-branes, instantons, and events.
• A misinterpretation of something in a sci-fi novel Permutation City. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFT. Badly-sourced mishmash of badly-understood physics. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous references from peer-reviewed journals by respected physicists. How exactly is it badly-sourced and badly-understood? Weburbia (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous paragraphs entirely without sources. And sources providing background information or otherwise failing to back up the actual content of the article do not count towards the notability of its topic, no matter how respected their authors might be. As for badly-understood, the nominator's discussion of the trivializing consequences of symmetry under all permutations and of Permutation City will suffice for two examples. I have read that novel and did not recognize its content from its description here (the paragraph about it in Garden of Eden (cellular automaton) is much more apropos and, unlike here, properly sourced to non-fiction sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are confused about the role of symmetry in physics and try to apply the symmetry principle to the solutions rather than the equations. They then come to nonsense conclusions such as "scalar fields are uniform". Obviously physicists would not be using symmetry principles if their consequences were that trivial. The relationship between the ideas of event symmetry and Greg Egan's dust theory from "permutation symmetry" were first pointed out to me by John Baez on sci.physics.research. Of course Egan uses the idea in different fictional and philosophical ways more related to mind uploading and the simulation hypothesis but his description of the physics principle is perfectly clear and directly related to this topic. He has a very good understanding of physics and mathematics and has published papers on quantum gravity so I dont doubt that he knew what he was talking about. Weburbia (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't write articles based on chatter on Usenet, and we certainly don't use Usenet chatter as a springboard to justify speculation and invention. XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't. We are using the references cited. Weburbia (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Large passages of text uncited, not written in an encyclopedic tone, doesn't demonstrate the notability of the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of pages which are labelled as stubs needing expansion, yet when I write an article with more detail and explanation it is called uncyclopedic. The "large passages" of explanation are covered in the cited sources. Weburbia (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My PROD rationale was With the original publication getting only 11 citations in 25 years, even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar (counting unpublished items and self-citations), this is not a notable physics idea. WP:SYNTH throughout. I thought at the time that that was an understatement; the nomination goes into more detail. XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree that it is synthesis. I think Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not applies here. Weburbia (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The combination of ideas that other, reliable sources have not yet combined = synthesis. And the notability and COI problems remain regardless. XOR'easter (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH applies here. Weburbia (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tercer (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails WP:GNG —Quondum 16:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? There are many references from reliable sources. If people prefer coverage in popular science press that can be found too, especially for the quantum graphity example. Weburbia (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first reference covers the topic, and that is a primary source, one which (having obtained a copy) only very sketchily covers it. There is nothing to indicate that the quantum graphity example preserves any "rules" under a general permutation of events, or that any sources claim that it does. Hence, such sources cannot be regarded as covering the topic. Given that you are "not that invested in keeping it", you are putting a lot of energy into arguing for its retention. —Quondum 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to argue against the deletion but I think its important to fix some of the factual errors in the rationale and comments, especially about the physics. It shouldn't be deleted for wrong reasons. Weburbia (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, as editors we all fall into the trap of arguing the physics from time to time. Criteria for whether a topic should be in WP centre on verifiability and not on the beliefs of the editors, which is why I focused in WP:GNG in this AfD thread. —Quondum 19:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until somebody can write a better article. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Rename The only genuine problem with this page is that it uses the term "Event symmetry" as a title and this is a usage that is not well supported by secondary sources for the subject matter. I therefore suggest that the page should be renamed to a more descriptive and generic title such as "space-time permutation symmetry" Weburbia (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would, at absolute best, make it a case for WP:TNT. But both synthesis concerns (combining various ideas that might be called "space-time permutation symmetry" that the literature has not combined in any serious way) and notability (most such proposals are marginal and have a paucity of in-depth secondary sources) would persist. XOR'easter (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I refuted most of the statements in the rationale in responses above. As for "A poorly explained notion of diffeomorphism invariance applied to a matrix model of M-theory" , this is explained with reference to one of the seminal and well-cited matrix theory papers by Iso and Kawai which said in the abstract "We finally argue a possible identification of the diffeomorphism symmetry with permutation group acting on the set of eigenvalues,.." I don't know how it could be more clear.Weburbia (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom's analysis and Weburbia's comments to keep. Excellent rationale. Couldn't be clearer. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 14:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. Riteboke (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:NFT PianoDan (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Excellent rationale. --SimoneD89 (talk) 05:29, 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifa Yasmin

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

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

BLP of a playwright who does not yet meet WP:CREATIVE as she is still very early in her career. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifa may be on the younger side, but she has been an incredibly influential voice in the emerging body of Trans and GNC theatre artists. Her first full-length play is being published in the forthcoming Methuen Drama Book of Trans Plays (the first anthology of its kind), and as a professional director, she was appointed to the Drama League's first Director's Council, where she is positioned at the same level as famous and influential US directors like Melia Bensussen, Daniel Banks, Brian Herrera, and Lisa Portes. She's also one of the most visible trans Muslim artist/activists and MENA-American Theatre Artists. Therefore, I contend that Sharifa is both "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and is "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique," in advocating for representation of a significantly minoritarian and intersectional identity within theatre spaces.Rmirsajadi (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now, as WP:TOOSOON and because there does not appear to be WP:BASIC coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources to support her WP:CREATIVE notability. Beccaynr (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable playwright.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Riteboke (talk) 07:34, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KMCT College of Engineering

KMCT College of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails GNG, NORG and NSCHOOLS as no independent sources are there to establish notability Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-01 ✗ deleted

• Delete - non-notable private educational institute. Riteboke (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Sandhu

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

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

Fails GNG and NACTOR. Nothing in her acting history suggests that she has had multiple significant roles in notable series. The two TV shows that bluelink don't even mention her. I see hits on Google News for people named Aman Sandhu, but they don't appear to be her. Article appears to have been created by a PR team as the creator was blocked for sockpuppetry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, per WP:NACTOR. Riteboke (talk) 07:37, 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 already deleted by admin Sergecross73, so no need to keep this discussion open any longer. (Non-admin closure) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros (2022 film)

Super Mario Bros (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

edit warred without any sources into mainspace, while this has been announced, there is no indication whatsoever that the cast list is real and it hasn't begun production yet. It will probably be notable if the cast list is real but it is not yet and it appears to be a partial hoax/fan wishlist based on this. EGGIDICAE🥚 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFF Donaldd23 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. No sources given, seems to be copy-pasted from fan wikis. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails NFF. Kolma8 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In fact, it’s a borderline G3. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per complete hoax. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And block the hoaxer who is continuing to wreak havoc in draftspace with a fake Pucca film. Nate • (chatter) 03:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I've blocked the article creator, as their primary purpose appears to be adding hoaxes to Wikipedia. Same here - a Super Mario film has been announced, but virtually all of the content present is a hoax. I mean, give me a break, if actors as big as Alex Baldwin was cast as Mario, or Danny Devito as Toad, this would be a front page story all across the internet. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to mention that The Rock doesn't seem like the type to accept anything under fifth-billing. Nate • (chatter) 20:08, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael "Wise Mike" Stepovich

Michael "Wise Mike" Stepovich (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 person's claim to fame seems to consist of a) having a son who was a governor, and b) being inducted into the Alaska Mining Hall of Fame. Poorly sourced, and a search finds only passing mentions in his son's obits etc. Fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a book about this person. Also found this source. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book is about this person's widow, rather. And in any case written by her relative, so not independent of the subject. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete having a son who becomes governor of a state does not make an individual notable. That is the only way we could find Stepovich notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any information about Marko Stijepović being inducted into the Hall of fame could be placed on his son's page. 81.131.132.199 (talk) 00:55, 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. The nominator was evading a block at the time of nomination (but another editor added a substantive comment so this is not WP:CSK#4). In the end, no editors in good standing have advanced an argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Believers Church Residential School, Thiruvalla

Believers Church Residential School, Thiruvalla (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 CBSE school. No sources to establish notability; fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The school is one of the top schools in Kerala as per the ranking by careers360.com. It is ranked as 20th best school under the category Top National Day-Cum-Boarding Schools in Kerala 2021 with AAA+ ranking.^[1] The School magazine "Blaze" was awarded the second best school magazine in Kerala in the All Kerala School Magazine competition 2015 conducted by The Confederation of Kerala Sahodaya.^[2] It was also listed as the Most Beautiful School in India by The Education Tree, India’s Biggest Youth Community.^[3] Various films were also filmed there including June, one of the highest grossing Malayalam film in the year 2019. Considering all this information, Believers Church Residential School, Thiruvalla shouldn't be deleted. TobinKoshy^Talk 06:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tobin Koshy : Can't consider this Instagram post, career 360 and school's website as reliable sources. YogeshWarah^Talk 07:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep - nomination was created by a sock in evasion of a block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 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 speedy keep. The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, and no other substantive comments about the article were made, so this falls under WP:CSK#4. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thrikkariyoor Kottekkavu Bhagavathi Temple

Thrikkariyoor Kottekkavu Bhagavathi Temple (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 Reliable Sources found. Fails WP:GNG YogeshWarah^Talk 05:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep - nominator was a sock created purely to evade a block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 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 speedy keep. The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, and no other substantive comments about the article were made, so this falls under WP:CSK#4. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Venugopala

Sree Venugopala (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 independen Reliable Sources found. To support WP: GNG YogeshWarah^Talk 05:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. YogeshWarah^Talk 05:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep - bad faith nomination as the AfD nominator is a sock created solely to evade an indefinite block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 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 merge to Charlie Rosen (musician). czar 20:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 8-Bit Big Band

The 8-Bit Big Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources currently used are primary (either by the band itself or their PR). Reliable sources show barely any coverage, passing mentions at best. IceWelder [✉] 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm finding enough deeper coverage beyond routine concent/album announcements to support an article: Boston Herald, NYTimes, a NPR station, not to mention various jazz magazines that I'm not 100% sure on reliability. At minimal, this would clearly support a merge and redirect to Charlie Rosen (musician). --Masem (t) 16:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The NYT one is mostly about Rosen and mentions the group only in passing. The other two are mostly interviews, so I'd definitely support a merge. IceWelder [✉] 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Charlie Rosen (musician) per above Mcguy15 (talk) 14:02, 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 17:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adaeze Unwanya

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

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

Primary school teacher. She is only known for one event, winning the "London’s Official Guest of Honour" in 2015. This is a promotional prize by Visitlondon.com for London tourism, in which the winner receives a two-week vacation in London with promotional events. The winner is selected on the basis of a short video and a 70 word description of their perfect day in London. This is a WP:BIO1E, promo coverage around the event. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The prize she won in no way is something that makes someone notable, and nothing else about here is even remotely close to making her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --hroest 21:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:BIO1E. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet notability WP:TOOSOON.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:01, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Springs, West Virginia

Cool Springs, West Virginia (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 someone can find significant coverage for this Cool Springs, then I will happily withdraw this. My WP:BEFORE found evidence that there is this Cool Springs, another one near Charlestown, WV; another near Wheeling, WV; and another near Morgantown, WV. Of the four, I found very little about this one.

Old topographic maps show this label in between a point on a railroad near a river and a road junction, there is basically nothing at either point. Later maps move the label to the road junction, which my BEFORE suggests was the wrong choice. I found an old newspaper result for a boat burning at the "Cool Springs wharf" in Wood County, a listing in a long list of railroad stations, and a statement that it was a point on the railroad with no post office. While I didn't find evidence of a community at this site, it's possible the railroad station is notable, although I was not able to find significant coverage of the site. I'm inclined to think that the Wood County Cool Springs is non-notable.

Taking to AFD, instead of PROD, due to the difficulty in BEFORE caused by the commonness of this place name in WV. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You found the list of stops on the Little Kanawha Railroad from 1903? I found the same thing. After Weekley's. The railroad was abandoned in 1937. There's probably an article to be had on that, but I couldn't find anything to write about this. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Clearly just a railroad spot. The railroad in question was operated by the B&O and I find it was abandoned in stages up into the 1970s. Mangoe (talk) 23:09, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marsaskala F.C.

Marsaskala 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)

Amateur football club which does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - appears to have played in the national cup, which is the generally accepted benchmark for football club notability. GiantSnowman 19:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:FOOTYN, shown by participation in the Maltese FA Trophy here: https://www.mfa.com.mt/en/cups-competitions/cupscompetitions/bycategory/1/publish_date/asc/10/1/the--fa-trophy.htm?round=1&s=11 User:apple20674 User talk:apple20674 14:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep: passes WP:NFOOTBALL, played in the national maltese cup CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:09, 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)} 18:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Played in Malta's national cup and so meets the SNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:32, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dingli Swallows F.C.

Dingli Swallows 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)

Amateur club which meets neither WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per research from Govvy below. GiantSnowman 11:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep From what I see the club does pass WP:FOOTYN having playing the the cups, they won the Second Div in 2009 [4], which means they played in the top tier in 2010. And lets have a look at our season page on wikipedia. 2009–10 Maltese Premier League, o look, there they are, playing a whole season and getting relegated. I am sure there are more sources to be found, to show their promotions, relegations. Goal.com [5] noted the club being one of the worse in the world! @Onel5969: I thought you would of done a much better WP:BEFORE, @GiantSnowman: There is always some degree of notability, you just got to go look for it. Govvy (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment O, and there is also Times of Malta, wack bam, [6] A load of articles for the club! Govvy (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Former top flight club, clearly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: passes WP:NFOOTBALL, see 2009–10_Maltese_Premier_League CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Govvy's arguments Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Govvy's arguments.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:40, 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. Consensus notability not shown Nosebagbear (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaynagar Chamatkarini Balika Vidyalaya

Jaynagar Chamatkarini Balika Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. There are listings, but no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references in the article are either primary or extremely trivial, and don't discuss the place in an in-depth direct way. Plus, nothing comes up in a WP:BEFORE from what I can tell that does. So, unless someone can provide WP:THREE good, in-depth independent references the article should clearly be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Govt. sponsored educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke (talk) 07:42, 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 redirect to Just Add Magic (TV series). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey K. Miller

Aubrey K. Miller (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 do not have admin access to old versions of this page to compare exact content (otherwise, I'd just Speedy it), but there are no significant changes to the limited set of roles that got her article deleted at the first AFD, and none of the listed sources are reliable sources. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No significant roles since her only major one in Just Add Magic. There is an article about this subject currently in draft space, and edits should've been made there instead of creating a mainspace article. I'm pretty sure this is mentioned when using the create option for the article, but I'm thinking the creator of this version either didn't see it or ignored it completely. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The old deleted article was pretty much like Draft:Aubrey K. Miller currently is. Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not yet meet the minimum threshold for actress notability, multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage is weak and not pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Just Add Magic (TV series), her only significant role. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E. C. Alft

E. C. Alft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Alft was a mayor of a small city, school teacher, and author of local histories. None of the sources here would add towards passing GNG. One of them is actually a work he wrote. A search finds a few adds for books he wrote and lots of brief mentions to his works, but no substantial indepth information about him that would justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. As a rule of thumb, mayors of cities (like Elgin) with populations > 100,000 have been found to warant stand-alone articles. A quick search of Newspapers.com found more than 100 articles discussing Alft, his published works, and his works as mayor, councilman, teacher, etc. A few examples of WP:SIGCOV include (1) "Elgin's in his blood: Look! Mike Alft can never learn enough", Chicago Tribune, March 31, 1991 (part 1 and part 2); (2) "Elgin marks historian's 90th birthday", Chicago Tribune,July 14, 2015 (a six-colum, in depth piece), (3) "Elgin honors former mayor, library trustee, author", Chicago Tribune, Nov 17, 2011 (part 1, part 2); (4) Dean of Elgin historians moving out of Elgin , Daily Herald, March 12, 2016; (5) this; (6) this; (7) this; and (8) this. Cbl62 (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question that any of these articles are published by publishers far enough from Elgin for this coverage to actually show notability. Local politicians will always get local coverage, this does not make them default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two-page, multi-column, in-depth biographical profiles in a major regional newspapers like the Chicago Tribune do not count toward a GNG analysis? There is no support whatsoever for that interpretation in WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, or WP:BASIC. Cbl62 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• At the time Alft was mayor of Elgin it had 56,000 people. Beyond this, Elgin is just one of many suburbs of Chicago, so its importance is not as high as it would be if it were a center of a metro area of its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Elgin "just one of many suburbs of Chicago" reflects a striking misunderstanding of its history. Elgin is not the product of post-WWWII suburban sprawl. It is located an hour's drive from central Chicago, has a long history (by Midwest standards) dating to 1835, and was home to the Elgin Watch Company and, from the 19th century through the 1960s, the largest watchmaking complex in the world.Cbl62 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep based on Cbl62 and the fact that all except 1 town in Illinois over 100k currently have a mayor article and I dont see why we should not extend this to past mayors. While maybe not known on a national level, it seems this is a person known on a local level. Coverage in Chicago Tribune also indicates passing GNG. In addition the subject also published books, even though through his local historical society. --hroest 21:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having your works published by a local history society is absolutely not in any way adding towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on arguments and sources provided by Cbl62.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:02, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lekki Wives

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

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

Fails GNG, Current sources fails GNG for this TV drama series. Pilean (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. The article cannot remain in main space as written. Sources used in the article are not reliable, other sources however exist; A BEFORE search brings up these sources in Vanguard Nigeria, Newsweek, TIME, TIME, and a source in French. I'm willing to clean up the article if I find the time and submit via AFC. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk)
• Keep: Poorly written but seem notable. Hopefully, TheSokks will improve it. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Changing my vote to keep as I've addressed the notability issues by adding better sources and done a general cleanup. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 09:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:HEY, after work done by The Sokks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wilson (Mr. Ragamuffin)

Daniel Wilson (Mr. Ragamuffin) (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:NMUSIC Pilean (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - First, I found that the text of this article is copied almost entirely from the musician's personal site, with the sections here conforming to the subpages at that site. The creator of the WP article added a few sources but they are unreliable reprints of press releases, as is common in Nigerian entertainment media. While this musician has been around for a long time, his only coverage is the aforementioned press releases and occasional gossip rag pieces about his personal life or a feud he got into with someone. He is also described as engaged in other activities outside of music, such as activism and politics, but I can find no reliable information on him leading any activist efforts or running for office, and that's under both of his names. He's done a lot of things and appears to be a reliable behind-the-scenes guy in Nigerian music, but he is not as influential as his own press releases say he is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 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. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Udoka Oyeka

Udoka Oyeka (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, WP:NACTOR Pilean (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilean (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Subject passes WP:NACTOR#1 as he has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. He also passes WP:DIRECTOR#3 as he has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known film and WP:DIRECTOR#4b as his work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition here and here. He has been nominated for an AMVCA for best director. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 11:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the nominator has been blocked as sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko. Riteboke (talk) 07:45, 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Pastor

Christina Pastor (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've been keeping tabs on this page since it was created, helping out the creator make a better-looking article, but their progress has stalled and I'm not sure there are enough reliable sources that exist in the world to indicate that she is a notable individual per our usual guidelines; I'm seeing almost no Google (or GNews) hits, and the references (even the ones recently removed) are relatively minor (or interviews). Primefac (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nom. Searches reveal nothing of note and the three existing sources include two YouTube videos and one other Mexican blog derived from Facebook posts announcing her own marriage - very much not independent.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The "lack" of citations on any page has always been exceptional in certain cases. Not to mention this actress has appeared in thirteen movies and television shows with Wikipedia pages that link here. Trevortnidesserpedx (talk) 3:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment "A non-notable actress" is a broad claim and has no justification behind it. Trevortnidesserpedx (talk) 3:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep If you did a bit of research, you would find out Christina Pastor has done theater plays and also acted in 13 Mexican soap operas, 3 movies (she has an imdb page), and there are numerous YouTube video clips of her work, as well as interviews and articles. Most recently there was an article on People Magazine en Español talking about her. Please do your homework and research before deciding something is "non-notable." Greeneagle72 8:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC) — Greeneagle72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you may of course be correct, but that doesn't add a dime to notability. Unless reliable and independent sources have written about her in the context of those plays, soap operas, YouTube videos etc, they do not add anything to notability. Many actors have a varied and successful careers without ever making it into Wikipedia.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 07:45, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekta 2019

Ekta 2019 (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 about a film by one G. Suman Reddy, contributed by Sumanreddydir who has made multiple attempts to place articles about this film, using a variety of titles, and whose promotional editing has previously been commented on their User Talk page. In 2016 an instance entitled "Ekta Movie" was deleted at AfD. In 2018 an "Ekta" article was deleted by PROD, in 2019 a similarly-named article was speedy-deleted as promotional [7]. Already this month another "Ekta Movie" instance has been created and was speedy-deleted [8], after which the same editor has created this newly-titled instance. Donaldd23 placed a PROD with the rationale "Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. All current citations are IMdB.". I am not seeing the substantial coverage needed to demonstrate notability, so agree with the rationale but it cannot stand as a PROD given the previous deletion history. AllyD (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFILM. Riteboke (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination defcon5 (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]