Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 27

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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus in favor of keeping the article, sustained by the consideration that the existing and added sources are enough to support inclusion of a topic that is obscure but addresses a historically significant population. BD2412 T 02:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Academic Society

Assyrian Academic Society (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:NORG as there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources found. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep it seems like they published a Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies for a while, which I think adds to notability. Since this is an academic society, independent sources are not really required and their lack is no reason to delete the article. --hroest 21:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hannes Röst, First, WP:NOTINHERITED, so the existence of that journal is irrelevant (also, it does not appear to meet WP:NJOURNAL. And which, pray tell, policy tells us that "Since this is an academic society, independent sources are not really required"? I'd be very interested in seeing it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a general agreement in WP:NPROF for academics (which I extended here for academic societies) that independent sources are not required, this especially after the Donna Strickland disaster. Often academic societies do not have strong coverage in popular media, however that by itself does not make them non-notable (they can of course still be non-notable). I was just point out this fact, however of course that does not make every society notable without question. --hroest 15:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article was in need of improvement, so I added some referenced content. The organization in question is notable enough to have an article, so I am voting against deletion. Sorabino (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources you cite (such as letter from the association's president[1]) are not independent from the society, and do not count for notability, except perhaps the Khoshaba & Benjamin source which appears to be a passing mention. Academic organizations are not exempt from notability requirements. (t · c) buidhe 05:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, additional referenced content was recently added, on AAS programs and activities related to cooperation with USA institutions and officials in improving minority rights of Assyrians in Iraq. Sorabino (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I am relatively sympathetic to the argument that NORG needs to be more inclusive of NGOs and scholarly institutions, but I'd like to see at least a single sentence in an independent, reliable source that says this NGOs has been significant for something. All I see is that it exists, publishes a journal, maybe few books and so on. That's, I am afraid, 'business as usual'. WP:NOTACATALOGUE, NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. If nobody out there bothered to publish a single sentence about this organization, what makes it encyclopedic? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, there are such references in the article, so there is no need for deletion. Good will is needed, based on fair assessments of the content. Sorabino (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorabino, Which references would that be? Can you list them here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are listed in the article, I added them myself. Sorabino (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorabino, Well, the last time I checked the article none of the added references met WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Piotrus, as stated above, I added some referenced content, you can see my edits in the edit history. As a possible alternative to complete deletion of content, would you support a merger of the content on AAS (as a USA based Assyrian cultural organization) in the "Culture" section of the article on Assyrian Americans, or you are still in favor of complete deletion? Sorabino (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorabino, Merger is totally fine, and if you want me to review any particular sources, please link them here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Piotrus, if I understand you correctly, you are not supporting complete deletion of the content on AAS, and would accept its merger as a subsection in the "Culture" section of the Assyrian Americans article, also leaving a redirect to that location? Sorabino (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorabino, Merger can be done at any point even before this AfD finishes. And the AA article you mention should mention the existence of this NGO, regardless of whether this article is kept or deleted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Piotrus, my first preferred option is still to keep the article. I added some new referenced content. Also, there are various sources reporting on cooperation between AAS and some specialized UN organizations, with support of some the USA government. This organization is notable enough to have its own article. Lets see what would be the outcome of this process. So far, I do not see any real support for the proposed deletion. Sorabino (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the references are good enough. As a minority ethnic group, these types of pages should be a little less restricted in my opinion than organizations that cater to larger populations. Assyrians are one of the oldest ethnicities of the world still around, and are scattered around in the Middle East, mostly Iraq and Iran. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expertwikiguy, I am afraid this is just a rehash of WP:ITSIMPORTANT... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel there are enough sources. Ignore my 2nd opinion. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Sorabino (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Like Piotrus I am sympathetic to minority organizations, but in the end we need more than in-passing mentions to build an article from. I sampled several of the independent sources and none went past the in-passing. I also tried to find a homepage for this organization, but failed to find one, so we can't even source non-controversial info to their own website (apart from some web-archived stuff). The last post on their Facebook page dates back to 2010. Unless some more "meaty" sources can be found, I don't see how we can make an article here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, thank you for raising those questions; the answers are provided in recent improvements of this article. Please, would you take another look? The traditional role of AAS as an academic and minority organization of Assyrian Americans is today (since 2019) performed by the "Assyrian Studies Association" (ASA). Since this article contains sourced information that is very relevant for the culture of Assyrian Americans in general, would you support any other solution, other that complete deletion? Sorabino (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. as part of our attempts at covering the entire world. It's appropriate that we make some degree of wider interpretation for less covered areas and aspects. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG: Well said. I agree. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG based on the references in the article.4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lee Watkins III

Richard Lee Watkins III (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 previously PRODed by another editor, which was removed without explanation by an IP with no other edits. Watkins wears a lot of hats, as shown by the lead's first sentence; however, I don't think any of them are significant enough to meet the notability standards. I'll go through several critiera:

• Politician: Fails WP:NPOL as a current candidate for U.S. Senate in 2022 who has not previously held elected office (he received 6.5% of the Democratic primary vote in a 2018 House race). Pretty much all of his coverage in independent sources is related to his Senate campaign announcement. For an election that's 20 months away with a primary that's barely begun, simply entering the race is not enough to confer notability.
• Academic: Fails WP:NACADEMIC — standard work at the graduate and postdoc level, did not continue to pursue research beyond postdoc
• Entrepreneur: Founded SPAN Inc., a nonprofit that does not meet Wikipedia's standard of notability

— DanCherek (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but this article fails to demonstrate that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, since it's referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability and shows not one whit of real reliable source coverage or analysis about his prior career. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concur with nom, I don't see anything that makes the subject notable. Jeepday (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom. article does not show any sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG and both applicable SNGs. The clearly professionally taken photo of the subject in the "smiling with arms crossed stance" tends to be a dead giveaway in terms of COI/PAID as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. --Devokewater 05:42, 3 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. Ignoring the personal attacks and aspersions of editors' motivations, I note that several sources were uncovered that were not refuted by those !voting "delete". Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Shibli

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

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

Trivial mention in Time, apart from that no other wp:rs, all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Time never is a trivial mention, and it is not right for you to assume that Kashmir journalists are being manipulated whom I think you should apologize to. As you say on your user page, you edit with a Pro-India sentiment for articles related to Kashmir.--Lohen11 (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lohen11, The TIME source has no byline, And isn't a significant coverage of him. Kindly share how does this meet WP:GNG. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibli was ranked fifth on Time's list (not a local little newspaper) of "10 most urgent threats to press freedom." You want to make the article disappear to deny a reality of this state.--Lohen11 (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability requires "multiple" examples of "significant" coverage. A single mention in a listcruft article with no real byline that is clearly a piece of propaganda against American geopolitical enemies doesn't count as significant. Every other source is just reporting on him being jailed or being released. That isn't enough to make him inherently notable as it isn't significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has a bias regarding articles related to Kashmir as stated on their user page. Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 09:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Seemplez, Ive mentioned that i might sometimes ' ' ' edit ' ' ' with a pro indian sentiment, that clearly doesn't mean that i put up these article for deletion because of it. There are 100's and 1000's of other article's out there related to kashmir, if i was biased to kashmiri article's i'd have posted all of them for deletion.I Check thoroughly the article's before putting them up for AfD, If i was biased i could've PRODded or CSD'd them. I am trying to clean up the wikiproject:jammu and kashmir, and clearly i've nominated multiple article's earlier which were unfit for mainspace and hence deleted. Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 10:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, this is neither a personal attack nor an assumption of faith. You have disclosed a bias on your user page and I have transcluded it here. Also your point that you don't have a bias because you didn't put every Kashmir related article up for deletion isn't really a point. You have disclosed a bias in editing. Why wouldn't your bias extend to AfD? Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominating a lot of Kashmir related articles/articles about Kashmiris today. Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 11:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Seemplez, As mentioned i'm trying to clean up the unfit article's. There are plenty of them that don't fit the encyclopaedia 's standard and must be removed or corrected. What's wrong in there? I've done the same earlier as well not just today, check my AfD history. Why are you making it like a PA? -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Seemplez, My Bias wouldn't extend to AfD because i properly write why it just be deleted. i don't give out biased opinions, i state the WP policies. and i am a human as well i make mistakes sometimes while nominating but i immediately rectify them and withdraw my nom. This article clearly has no Significant Coverage and hence i've nom it for AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jammumylove, I do not wish to continue this. Happy editing. Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By Nominator: By Manipulation of these article's i meant that the source are from local jammu kashmir based media agencies and these journalists can easily get themselves posted on there. There are no proper significant WP:RS. Also this article looks more of an WP:BLP1E i-e Significant for the Arrest of Qazi Shibli. And it can be redirected to it just like Arrest of Kamran Yusuf if not deleted. Also the only WP:RS Time Has no byline. Thanks. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 10:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Despite having some concerns regarding this subject's notability, I strongly recommend not to have any assumptions like Kashmir journalists are being manipulated. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmorwiki either read things properly or kindly don’t misinterpret. I’ve clearly written that these kashmiri media houses can be easily manipulated by these journalists. Not what you’re saying.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove,I havent misinterprated what you said. all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists ; this is your comment. You havent said they can be manipulated. You just said they are being manipulated. So its clear who is actually trying to misinterpret the statements. Do you have any evidence to prove your assumption? If dont,please dont make such type of comments in AFD's. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kashmorwiki, you’ve written that Kashmir journalists are being manipulated and I’ve written all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists the difference can be spotted b/w these two by anyone who can read English which I doubt you can’t. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove, whether it is mostly or leastly or whatever it may be,I just wanted to say that you made up such type of baseless argument in an AFD. And in this encyclopedia, you dont have the right to say that they are manipulated unless you provide reliable sources or any other means as proof. Finally, such type of arguments should not be used in AFD discussions and this encylopedia is not a place to show your Pro india sentiments against its policies. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kashmorwiki, There’s no way that could prove the internal things with these kashmiri media agencies but being from jammu and kashmir i know how easily jammu and kashmir based media agencies are manipulated. And moreover i never tried to push this as the reason for the AfD, My reason is simple, this article doesn’t have WP:RS and if it has kindly show, or maybe research and add them to this article I’d be happy to withdraw the nom. But until then it’s clearly evident that this article is eligible for AfD, and yes my pro Indian sentiments have nothing to do with this, i never said that kashmiri articles should be deleted for no reason. I have withdrawn many AfD related to kashmir just because they later were improved to be fit on pedia but this one isn’t at this version.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jammumylove, As of now, I have no objection with your nomination of this article for AFD. What I said is that you should not add your own findings anywhere in this encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:No original research. This is applicable to everywhere in wikipedia. Your activity here has real consequences, because Wikipedia is in the real world. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not notable person to have a BLP in WP.Kolma8 (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Particularly significant is a peer reviewed journal article which focuses on Shibli in more detail: Bilal Ahmad Pandow (September 2020). ""The idea is to kill journalism": Kashmiri journalists on what it's like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law". Index On Censorship. 49 (3): 17-19. The Time article is also significant and there are other sources which I will list here. See Christian Science Monitor, Mint (newspaper), and "India: Abuses Persist in Jammu and Kashmir". Asia News Monitor. August 5, 2020.. All put together and this meets GNG. Appologies for no urls for some of the sources, but I accessed them through my university library and they are not available for free online. 4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4meter4, Hi, CS Monitor and Mint is again a trivial mention, it doesn't discuss shibli significantly. Moreover they discuss more about his arrest rather then him. Check out Arrest of Kamran Yusuf, If shibli gets a stand-alone article then most of the arrest related article's deserve it as well. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 14:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated earlier, the most significant sources are the peer reviewed journal article and the feature in Time. Neither of those are trivial mentions (no matter how much you insist otherwise), and support WP:SIGCOV. The fact that international press in multiple continents is interested enough in this journalist to mention him in context to world events in addition to these two significant sources is enough to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. Lastly, you seem to have a WP:POV agenda here which may be impacting your editorial judgment.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 4meter4, I Don't have a WP:POV agenda here, i am speaking on facts only. WP:SIGCOV states that Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail I don't see any of the WP:RS covering this subject in detail. They do cover his arrest in detail and i've suggested that as well. This might certainly seem as WP:POV but you can check my AfD history,Being the nom it's my responsibility to discuss and I always reply to all the comments made to discuss things in detail. And moreover my POV won't be considered, because the closing admin's would obviously be more experienced than me to decide whether my comments made make sense or not. Also as far as Time Is considered, Macktheknifeau has already stated that above Notability requires "multiple" examples of "significant" coverage. A single mention in a listcruft article with no real byline that is clearly a piece of propaganda against American geopolitical enemies doesn't count as significant. Closing this discussion now. Peace. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I read that assessment and I disagree with the characterization. The Time article is clearly divided into 10 sections with headings profiling 10 individuals. One of those headings, and it’s succeeding section is devoted to Qazi Shibli. That’s not a trivial mention, but a featured profile. The fact that the magazine chose to simply biline the entire article with TIME Staff is not surprising or unusual in this kind of article, but it doesn’t change the fact that the article would have gone through TIME’s well respected fact checking and editorial review process, and therefore doesn’t diminish the quality or verifiability or significance of the work as a piece of evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:As per the latest findings by 4meter4. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the article, i am a notable and famous journalist from jammu and kashmir and founder of the kashmiriyat which is the most famous media agency in kashmir, people use wikipedia to read and know about me. Do not delete this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:2D8D:3916:6159:30D1:6F74:9CBA (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, why are we even using the news-site he's associated for an article on him. -- Eatcha 05:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Needs multiple independent sources giving significant coverage- he has one and several local ones he may be connected to. Perhaps a WP:TOOSOON, but not currently notable. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer. The offline peer reviewed journal article I cited above is a significant source. The deletion votes have not accounted for the offline reference when weighing WP:SIGCOV. That and the the Time story in addition to the global press coverage is enough to meet the multiple sources requirement of GNG in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Content is irrelevant for determining notability at AfD; limited evidence of BEFORE process. Extensive, multiyear, indepth coverage available,^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} discussed by Amnesty International^[9] and in the 2020 Freedom House annual review.^[10] UCS, easily meets the GNG.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Goldsztajn, limited evidence of BEFORE? how? I've already commented above that the subject Shibli does have SIGCOV but for just one event i-e his arrest which would be a BLP1E. Moreover i've suggest it to be changed as Arrest of Qazi Shibli, Just Like Arrest of Kamran Yusuf. Even the source's you've shared have covered his Arrest. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 17:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The AfD nomination only deals with the content, it does not address the issue of notability, hence "limited evidence of BEFORE". If you wish to have a discussion about renaming the article, AfD is not the place. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, AfD arises only when there’s the issue with the Notability. What else venue do you think the notability should be discussed at, if not AfD? As per my knowledge, we raise articles at AfD when they have notability issues and aren’t fir per standard of an encyclopaedia. If i am wrong do correct me.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammumylove: To be precise: *your* entire nominating text was purely about the present contents of the article, which is irrelevant for the purposes of AfD. This is why I stated that there was limited evidence of WP:BEFORE...If I wasn't AGF, I probably would have said, "no evidence." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Times article cannot be considered trivial. There is significant coverage available on the subject though the article does require more details.defcon5 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's a notable journalist and has enough reliable news links references. User talk:Jammumylove Created account few weeks back and looks like purposely nominating profiles for nomination.

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 22:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfried Hochholdinger

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

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

Subject of the lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows hits in user generated sources, self published sources and other unreliable sources. They are an actor but I don’t see any criterion from WP:NACTOR satisfied as they haven’t won any significant award neither have they taken lead roles in movies they featured in. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is in a dire state but a glimpse at his article on de-Wiki at least shows that he acted in a bunch of productions. He played minor roles in Inglourious Basterds,X-Men: First Class, and Speer und Er. He's also had lots of appearances in German TV productions, of which few are lead roles. All in all, not enough to fulfil criterion 1 of WP:NACTOR. I've tried looking for coverage of him in reliable German sources but couldn't find anything substantial. A show of his is discussed here without giving any biographical information. Given that the German wiki article doesn't cite any solid sources either, there seems not to be anything out there that could make him pass WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My finding echo those of 'Modussiccandi' does not meet WP:NACTOR lots of minor roles, nothing on de.wiki that implies he could pass it. Jeepday (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Reliable sources not found. Non notable Actor. Fails NACTOR & GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Article lacks RS. Alex-h (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or any other measure of notability. --Kbabej (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 05:45, 3 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Jović

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

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

User:Lazargang1 has expressed a wish for all or part of the article to be deleted on its talk page. Officiating in the Europa League does not make him notable by default. The only guideline that referees pass or fail is WP:GNG or WP:BIO.

There are pages and pages worth of passing mentions but I can't actually find any coverage going into any depth about him. There are plenty of routine announcements, basically saying 'Jović set to referee x vs y', for example Nacional and VL. Aside from that, we have a couple of articles criticising a refereeing decision, one of which being Jutarnji. I can't see any indication that this person is notable enough for an article in a general encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete This is WP:G3 eligible, we don't need an AfD for this. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to remove the vandalism. I suspect it wouldn't be eligible since the first two sentences aren't vandalism. I considered WP:A7 but officiating in the Europa League would likely mean that that would be declined. PROD would just be removed by the creator so AfD was the only option left. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Speedy deletions, specifically G3s, are not PRODs, and the article creator is not allowed to remove that template. Anyways, it may no longer be eligible, should still be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete The creator has a pretty long history of vandalism not unique to this page. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 02:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 05:47, 3 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 01:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Med-X

Med-X (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:BAND; there's no significant coverage to be found. Lennart97 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Couldn't find anything that establishes notability. Since they are inactive, there is little chance of them being notable, imo. They have only released one studio album. Unsourced since 2007. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BAND - Xclusivzik (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 05:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players#M. There is a strong consensus that the subject is not notable and that it should be a redirect. There only referenced material here is the birthplace and university career, but does not need to be merged considering the content of the other list entries. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Machin

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

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

This was nominated last year, but the nomination was poor, and all of the arguments for keep were that he passed WP:NCRIC. Unfortunately, Machin definitively fails WP:GNG. The only two sources in the article are to Cricket Archive and CricInfo, two statistical database sites which don't pass WP:SPORTCRIT for notability purposes. I did a fairly comprehensive BEFORE search in which I found a reprint of the scorecard of the List A match he played in, but the newspaper did nothing except reprint the score of the match, not provide any significant coverage of him, and the only other appearances of his name were in agate (i.e., not SIGCOV). No issue with an ATD if a suitable one is found. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please, we've got enough on our plate right now as it is. If we need eyes looking at articles, sending them to AfD should not be the first resort. As we can prove over and over again, source material exists elsewhere if we allow more eyes to look first. The deletion rationale on the original AfD was poor because it was a lie. Bobo. 22:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players - despite some users arguing that Machin does pass WP:GNG in the previous AfD, there is absolutely no evidence that he does. There is clear consensus that a trivial passing of WP:NCRIC is insufficient when GNG is comprehensively failed. Redirect per ATD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. Does not pass WP:GNG. All the available sourcing is statistical database entries in nature, so a redirect to a list containing similar info is appropriate. Reyk _YO! 08:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but a search didn't bring about significant coverage. Sources may exist offline, and if anything on his scholarly contribution or literary contribution can be found I may well reconsider. Currently though, using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. Reasonably long minor counties career including one List A match, but none of it equates to playing at the highest domestic level. No significant coverage found, with mentions being almost exclusively scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players it is better.--Alcremie (talk) 06:53, 1 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeros and Ones

Zeros and Ones (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 future film, fails WP:NFF. All sources, including others found online, just talk about the star, Ethan Hawke, and nothing about the production of the film. Should be deleted or moved back to draftspace until closer to actual release when sources are about the film, not the actor.

Previous AfD (in February) resulted in a delete. Article was recreated in draftspace...and moved to main, again too soon. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldd23 I'm sorry to say this, but you are incompetent, and you don't respect the work of others. --Salvatoreariel (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatoreariel - completely unacceptable comment. Please read WP:NPA. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatoreariel, argumentum ad hominem jabs are considered a bad tone... Here is some late night reading for you: WP:NOPA... Kolma8 (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL. I agree it's too soon for this article to be created. I don't know why Salvatoreariel would move Zeros and Ones to article space when it's not ready yet. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per above. Last time Salvatoreariel created this article directly in mainspace, I speedied it under G11. It’s just not ready. Salting might be a good idea until the film is notable. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 22:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify as production hasn't begun, but it will be considered notable in future, assuming it gets made. G4 any future creations if productions hasn't started and/or notability still not established. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a film that is ready, already finished for months. By putting it on wikipedia we save all the work. Wikipedia deserves this article. I don't understand why you are hesitant. --Salvatoreariel (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence to support that the production has already finished? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When a movie is on the reputable and serious IMDB site: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13432484/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm It means filming is over. --Salvatoreariel (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't and, for the record, a film being on IMDb doesn't automatically make it notable enough either. There is nothing on WP:NFILM or WP:NFF that says that we can create an article on a film as soon as it appears on IMDb... Also, copy pasting from NFF Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To echo Spiderone I could not find anything saying that the production is over. Last piece of new I have seen here [2], that filming WOULD begin in Italy in November 2020... Kolma8 (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMdb is not considered a "reputable and series site". See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Questionable_resources. It would be best to do research before commenting. Also, no one is trying to "delete your hard work", its just too early for this article. Its fine in draftspace until it is closer to release. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spideron How do you tell that IMDB is not trusted? IMDB is the most serious movie site around. You must inform yourself: this is serious ... "I copy and paste, because I don't write very well in English" excuse me --Salvatoreariel (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reliable source for use as a reference on Wikipedia, please read WP:RS. IMDB is a user-generated site similar to how Wikipedia is, anyone can edit it. Also in regards to your comment about it being on IMDB means that filming is over, that is false, movies like Guardians of the Galaxy 3 [3] are only in pre-production, and still have a IMDB page, just like this movie does. The article will be made, it just isn't ready yet per Wikipedia policies. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - at this point it's not in production, so draftify until principal photography starts, if there's enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG at that point. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 2 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 22:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Rigacci

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

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

Not notable GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian singer, participant on the Hungarian X Factor. She has been the subject of two AfDs on huwiki, each of them including the reasoning "just because she appeared in a talent show, she haven't achieved anything else". To date, she has only one song. The sources in the article are the official site of the TV channel that used to air the show (RTL Klub), and the other is an article on X-Faktor, where she is mentioned trivially. During a google search I only found the usual social media pages and streaming links, as well as lots of gossip stuff. According to the second Afd on huwiki, "basically, she haven't achieved anything notable, her only single is almost completely unknown, it haven't achieved any chart positions. Since the show has ended, she is not active in the Hungarian media, it is unknown if she even continues singing. On her facebook page, she gets 10-20 likes, so it is possible that she is unknown even in her homeland." The last statement is irrelevant, I know, since fb likes are no support of notability, but I agree with these statements in general. Just because she appeared in a talent show, she is not notable. COI also applies, as Serena herself has contributed to this article (see page history). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have found several more or less suitable sources (1, 2, 3, 4 and couple of others, most of them are interviews or short mentions. I believe it's TOOSOON now, she is being called young and perspective, but Wikipedia policies are not met yet.Less Unless (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even remotely close to meeting the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 29 March 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 Adrian Cheng#Personal life. Content worth merging is available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Yu Cheng

Jennifer Yu Cheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are not indepth sources to passes her WP:GNG Gritmem (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Striking comment of blocked nominator. Cunard (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gritmem (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked the nominator for WP:UPE, however I wish this nomination to be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 19:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Adrian Cheng#Personal life, her husband, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The sources I found primarily covered the subject in the context of coverage about her husband. I am willing to switch to supporting a standalone article if substantial coverage about Jennifer Yu Cheng can be found.

  This 13 November 2020 article in Apple Daily notes, "新世界發展（017）執行副主席鄭志剛（Adrain）大家唔陌生，佢太太余雅穎（Jennifer）就相對低調，主打家族嘅教育事業，不過近排悄悄地有新搞作，華華聽聞佢上個月成立咗間新公司「鄭余雅穎培菁女性創效基金」，英文就係「Jennifer Yu Cheng Girls Impact Foundation」，用自己個名嚟命名，唔知搞邊科呢？"

  From Google Translate: "Adrain, Executive Vice Chairman of New World Development (017), is not unfamiliar to everyone. His wife, Jennifer, is relatively low-key, focusing on family education, but there are new things in recent days. She established a new company named 「鄭余雅穎培菁女性創效基金」. The English name is 'Jennifer Yu Cheng Girls Impact Foundation'."

  If Jennifer Yu Cheng receives more coverage in the future (which is possible if she stops being "relatively low-key"), there is no prejudice against undoing the redirect and restoring the standalone article.

  Cunard (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does not appear notable and no reliable secondary citations.Miaminsurance (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mrs Cheng is in different sector with Mr Cheng, and really a different person. --Kgarden.finder (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC) — Kgarden.finder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you are the creator of the article please disclose any paid editing. And as a new editor, i advise you to read WP:GNG and WP:BIO first.

And your username, is it a short form of "kindergarden finder"? Not sure it violate username policy or not. Matthew hk (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her role is building girls and women's impact, and investment from the group she is strategic director of is cited in edit.Kaybeesquared (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is significant news coverage, enough IMO. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The news coverage is far from significant . They are routine coverage. Also per user:Cunard. Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and still vote forKeep - at the risk of adding more fuel to the delete votes, her daughter is an award winner too Sonia Cheng, should mother be merge into Sonia's page than with her husband, given her interest in developing women and girls, or replace all of them with a Cheng family page if none of them are cited as notable on their own, the son (also Adrian) does not seem to have an article? ^[1]Kaybeesquared (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: According to their articles, Sonia Cheng is a year older than her supposed mother Jennifer Yu Cheng. Something seems to be wrong here. Furius (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect per Cunard, we'll have to trim it down and maybe re-write it, since there are not a lot of reliable sources. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 20:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources 11, 20 and 21 qualify as significant independent coverage from reliable sources. That passes GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Adrian Cheng#Personal life - The sources are not significant enough. Sun8908 _Talk 15:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User:Macktheknifeau has identified several independent reliable sources. Merging with her husband seems highly unsatisfactory.
  P.S. She can't be the mother of Sonia Cheng, as claimed by this article, since the latter is a year older than her.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furius (talk • contribs)

If you can read Chinese, Jennifer is the wife of Adrain Cheng , while Sonia is the sister of Adrain . Matthew hk (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, her "notability" is derived from Cheng family's investment. Merely as a director of an Education provider is not notable and those "coverage" are just gossip. Matthew hk (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Sonia Cheng's GNG. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Matthew hk (talk) 01:52, 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 22:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English People's Liberation Army

English People's Liberation Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minor paramilitary organisation. Was up for speedy, but I'm not convinced it meets WP:CSD#A7. Linking this terrorist organisation to a republican BLP looks a bit problematic, but without that there is very little left to say. —Kusma (t·c) 20:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 20:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Kusma (t·c) 20:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It gets an entry on page 497 of ISBN 9780582902558. As for the encyclopaedia cited as one of the sources here: That encyclopaedia's entry is about the Republican Party of England, on pages 76–77, but does connect it to this subject. I even found the original news reports from 1983 about the parcel bomb. I'm not sure that presenting these organizations as tiny encyclopaedia articles is the best approach. Some kind of umbrella subject might be better. But the sources cited, and other sources that can be found, do pan out. Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I don't doubt the existence, but it does seem a minor footnote in UK domestic terrorism. I'm a bit confused that {{UK far-left}} lists it as "Marxist–Leninist", though, and there's no indication of that here. —Kusma (t·c) 21:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is possibly because the aforementioned encyclopaedia says "Maoist inspired". Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although quite a few people have now looked for reliable sources, there's nothing substantial; while there is something accurate which can be said, it doesn't appear to reach notability. Ideally, this could be merged elsewhere, but I can't think of a suitable location. Warofdreams talk 17:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My search is finding the same as others, fails WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps should have a mention in a wider article, but as a stand-alone article, I agree with the above votes that there is not enough notability here. doktorb _words^deeds 08:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 05:52, 3 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 22:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firoz Kunnumparambil

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

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only stated notability claim is as a candidate in an upcoming election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and his only path to getting a Wikipedia article in advance of the election would be to demonstrate that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before he ever stood as a candidate for anything. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but he isn't already entitled to have an article just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL as described above. Subject has also received media coverage with regards to unproven criminal allegations, but that does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:BLPCRIME. DanCherek (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: Just a person from Kerala who became viral through social media. Written for promotional work as 2021 Kerala legislative election is just a few days ahead where this person is a candidate. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 08:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: Not even an attempt to claim notability has been made. --RaviC (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not for building recognition before an election. If the subject is elected, then by all means, recreate or refund. --Kbabej (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 05:44, 3 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 Ephraim Williams#Early life. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Williams Sr.

Ephraim Williams Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:N and hinges on relation to Ephraim Williams for whom an existing article already exists for Shushugah (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: No independent sources, and frankly, I'd back a Speedy based on a failure to assert a claim of notability. As far as the article states, this was Just Some Guy from Massachusetts colonial days. Ravenswing 05:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ephraim_Williams#Early_life. MarkZusab (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sounds more like something that should be on Ancestry.com rather than an encyclopedia. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STI International

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

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

Sennecaster and I were unable to find any sources giving in-depth coverage of this company, to the point that I highly doubt it meets WP:NCORP. The article is currently entirely sourced to the company website and associated press releases. About the best source is this, which is rather promotional in tone, and only covers the name change. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I originally went to this page as part of a CCI. Much of the information is again, parsed from the company website. I have a feeling there is some vague paraphrasing going on as well in the actual prose, not even relating to the content. I am not a content editor, again, I came here from CCI. I suggest deletion, as it has no notability under Wikipedia policy and a quick search returns up very little reliable sources. The promotional tone of the article CAN be fixed, but in addition to the lack of WP:NCORP I think this is the best course of action. Sennecaster (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is the adoption of the Staccato 2011 by the United States Marshals Service's Special Operations Group (noted in this subsection, with this source), enough to make the company and/or the 2011 notable? RadiculousJ (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's a good point. However, it's one of the only sources then that is notable. I won't be opposed to keeping if more sources like the one you provided were found (not just by you, but by others as well). Sennecaster (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - small gun company. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Brijwasi

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

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

Not enough coverage to pass GNG also fail for WP:REALITYSINGER being a winner of reality television doesn't make him notable Sonofstar (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep winning two national television singing competitions passes criteria 9 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) as confirmed by reliable sources already in the article such as New Indian Express and the Hindu, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The subject meets WP:BASIC.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} Currently elaborating, please wait... ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evaluation:
    • ^[1] A very detail biography of the subject, thus can constitute as wp:sigcov.
    • ^[2] Excluding the interview section for not being wp:independent, leaving only the lead, the coverage is far removed from being a trivial mention (but may not be wp:sigcov) and can contribute to wp:basic.
    • ^[3] While it may not be wp:sigcov, the coverage is still far removed from being a trivial mention.
    • ^[4] May or may not be wp:sigcov, but is not a trivial mention.
    • ^[5] Same as above.
  • With these sources, the combined is enough to meet wp:basic. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding WP:REALITYSINGER, reliable sources have shown that the subject is notable outside of a reality television series, so it fails the second point. The subject also meets the WP:SINGER C9. As the subject meets both WP:BASIC and WP:SINGER, the subject is very likely to be notable. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the above arguments that the subject won two television shows therefore warrants an independent article satisfies criteria 9 WP:MUSICBIO is factually incorrect. They were television shows. See WP:REALITYSINGER #2: Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable. The subject is only notable for winning 2 television contests as you just stated, and lacks significant news coverage in verifiable sources. Therefore, there is not enough to merit an independent article per policy. Also, it's clear you don't understand what exactly WP:SIGCOV is. It's not a biography, nor is it a handful of articles that merely mention the subject. It's a reference to media attention and significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Topic fails notability requirements and should be deleted. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Add on after Megtetg34 valid points. If fails GNG also

[4] no author name is written, It is hard to believe, it is independent

[5] This is again not independent, just an interview on winning the show.

[6], [7], [8] No Author name are written. PTI is the Press Trust of India, so this is also not independent. Also, it's just written about winning the show and not in-depth about his own journey. Sonofstar (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. Winning two notable television music competitions clearly passes WP:NMUSIC as confirmed in multiple reliable sources such as The Hindu. Not all newspapers give bylines so that is not a factor. The reality singer link is for singers who only win one competition not two different ones which obviously makes their coverage more than one event and independent of each win. There is no valid reason for this article to be deleted in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There should be at least 2-3 independent coverage, all the news website shared till now, give author bylines if you check other news links of those sites, it fails WP:GNG Rest no secondary coverage apart from show winningSonofstar (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we have tended to keep the winners of major reality TV shows. Indian TV is a billion-person market. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on winning music contests he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, Please share, where is the album or song published by him??? How come WP:MUSICBIO is applicable for a reality show singer. He is not even Passing GNG as it's all Press wired news he has. He must pass WP:REALITYSINGER which he fails.Sonofstar (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Considering WP:REALITYSINGER: Assume the subject is only notable for two reality television series. Interpreting the guideline strictly, it fails C2 as the subject is not only notable for a reality television series. But what about the spirit of this guideline? Assuming being only notable for two reality television series still meets C2, may be redirected to an article about the series poses a problem, that is which reality television series of the two should we redirect to? Therefore, the spirit of the guideline is really the same as the words of the guideline.
  For by-lines, they are only as reliable as the publisher itself. A dependent publisher can put names that look independent as the authors. Instead, the content itself is a much more reliable indicator of independence. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:55, 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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a low-participation consensus to delete the article. However, given the fact that the subject exists and has had non-trivial academic impact, I would be glad to refund this article to draft if any editor is interested in taking it up as a subject for improvement. BD2412 T 04:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stefanotti

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

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

PR, notability lacking, product of paid editing: see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson_paid_editing Acousmana (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:TNT. I just don't see significant coverage at all, and he does not pass WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:NAUTHOR. If he paid for this article, he should demand a refund. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for a "keep" in the first iteration Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stefanotti Jacobmcpherson (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per criteria 1 of WP:Creative. Two sources acknowledge his central importance in the photo-realism movement: the New Yorker (see article citation) and in Horizon - Volume 24, Issue 4 - Page 33 (offline). That in conjunction with the sources cited in the first AFD by User:James500 (see link to first AFD above) seem to meet the criteria for WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article reads more like a promotional blurb than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are any of these Google Scholar mentions relevant? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=robert+stefanotti Jacobmcpherson (talk) 12:40, 1 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 22:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJ0.6

MJ0.6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Blatant advert, moved more than once from draft by obvious COI editor. Fails referencing, fails WP:NMUSIC, should not be draftified. Pure Vanispamcruftisement Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC + WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - massive rap sensation he is not. Zero coverage in the media, not even the usual paid-for press releases. The only evidence that this rapper even exists is a YouTube channel, in which most of the videos have fewer than 100 views. Not even remotely close to being notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Repeatedly declined draft moved into mainspace by an obvious COI editor, with no reliable sources; no indication that the subject meets either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I deleted the sandbox version per WP:G11. WP:A7 also looks defensible. Delete as WP:ARTSPAM about a subject who does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or WP:NMUSIC. The refbombing(?) just does not provide significant sourcing. I know the AfD admins like full, well thought out rationales, but there are only so many ways of saying subject does not meet inclusion requirementst. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no signs of being a notable musician and fails WP:GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't have much to add to everyone else's solid reasoning above, except to say that self-promoters are even less believable when they have no subtlety. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: He is not a notable rapper.Wasraw (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: He is not a well known rapper.Beckyrose233 (talk)
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per others.--vote by Alcremie (talk) 06:22, 1 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. Withdrawn nomination and speedy keep. Easily passes WP:BASIC Shushugah (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Withey

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

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

Her product is clearly notable but the page is mostly about her company, and trivia about herself. Fails notability per WP:INHERITORG Shushugah (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shushugah (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BASIC is met because she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, for example: Wall Street Journal, Hartford Courant, SFGate (all of which have been added to the article by Skynxnex). Those are all profiles of Annie Withey the person, not just about the company. DanCherek (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created the article but I still think that she meets WP:BASIC and WP:INHERITORG doesn't apply since she: reached notability with at least two companies; has had multiple stories written about her and her experience as a business woman, spanning the from the 1980s until now, that are not solely focused on Annie's Homegrown. I've added a few sources and expanded some sections since the initial AfD notice so I think it addresses some of the potential issues as well. Skynxnex (talk) 13:47, 28 March 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. Any of the editors who wishes to have a redirect from this title is free to create one if they wish to. JBW (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Righeira (Righeira album)

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

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

While this group had several hit songs, none of their albums, including this one, appear to meet either WP:GNG, and definitely don't meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM, format seems to be almost the same like To_the_Power_of_Eight CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect with protection, because redirection has been attempted before, and the article creator has insisted on restoring the article without providing any sources. Really the same applies to all of the group's albums which this editor has created, none of which have charted anywhere – the article creator has also insisted on creating a chart table for the albums on the group's discography page, which I have pointed out is a waste of time, as naturally with no charting albums at all, the table is completely empty. Richard3120 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article does not even make a claim to notability. I was going to say redirect to the group's article Righeira, and protect the redirect if required, per Richard3120, but no-one is ever going to search on this title. Since the album is named for the group, anyone looking for it will end up on the right page. Meters (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - First, note that there is an article for one of the songs from this album, Vamos a la playa (Righeira song), which was a significant hit single in Europe, and the article backs it up. However I can find nothing on this parent album, which appears not to have charted anywhere, even in the same countries where the single hit the top ten. Perhaps this says something about the marketing of European albums in the 80s. The nominator may also want to check out the articles for two other albums by this group: Bambini Forever and Vamos a la playa (Righeira album). This "Comment" is not a vote because I find it strange that an album is so invisible even though it has a huge single, and I am unsure on whether to delete or redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: I think there are two issues here. Firstly, there were no Italian album charts during the 1980s, so charting is going to be impossible to find, even if the album includes a big hit single. Secondly, for Eurodisco/pop songs like "Vamos a la playa", their appeal was generally to a "one-off" singles-oriented market, and often a group like this might have one or two hits and then disappear completely. It would be very common that a summer party song like this could sell in huge numbers, but nobody would be interested in buying a whole album that just repeated the formula ten times with diminishing results. The fact that the album didn't chart in other established European charts, despite the song's popularity there as well, is a good indication to me that this is the case. Given the single's popularity, it seems likely to me that the album might have been reviewed in Musica e dischi, easily Italy's most popular music magazine of the time - maybe in other European music magazines as well. But without access to any copies to check this, it's impossible to say whether I'm right. Richard3120 (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsdayer520, perhaps this is a case of WP:INHERIT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found one reliable source so far Rolling Stone. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, but it's hard to say how much of that article is useful or in-depth... it's clearly written very much tongue-in-cheek. It basically describes the album as giving new meaning to the word "nonsense", laughs at the lyrics of three of the tracks, and that's it. Richard3120 (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Righeira discography: Barely found anything about the album aside from a source indicated above. There may be sources about the album per Richard3120, but they're hard to find in the net. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Righeira discography. After my comment above, the others have convinced me of the wisdom of this recommendation. Note that there is evidence that an interested editor keeps reverting redirects of this band's albums, so Protect against reversion of this redirect as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SAFE-BioPharma Association

SAFE-BioPharma Association (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 page has not been substantively updated in at least 10 years. For example, it includes aspirational goals that the association hopes to achieve “by 2012.” In addition, it lacks sources and citations, and is written like a website or public relations piece. In researching the organization, it appears that it no longer exists and likely hasn’t for many years. ABT021 (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not finding anything to meet WP:GNG no claims in the article that imply I am missing anything. Jeepday (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kayaking at Kotepally

Kayaking at Kotepally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this exercise does exist, not enough in-depth coverage for a standalone article. Might be worthwhile to start an article on Kotepally Dam, and then have this included in a section on Activities, or Tourism. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, no sigcov, looks more like advertising for Kotepally dam CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass any wp notability criteria. 2603:7000:2143:8500:BC29:39D3:B962:8854 (talk) 06:38, 30 March 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. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khantipalo

Khantipalo (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 about a writer and Buddhist teacher has been tagged as needing more citations since 2019 (main article) and 2018 (biography section). I have not been able to find anything to add. It looks as if ABC may have done a profile on him here, but if so I can't find more info. I can't find reviews of his book, Noble Friendship: Travels of a Buddhist Monk, though there is a reference in an academic journal. Tacyarg (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shimmer (Sal Paradise album)

Shimmer (Sal Paradise album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM, as I can not find any significant coverage of this album, nor of the artist, who doesn't have an article. A claim of notability is made for being the soundtrack to a German film which doesn't have an English WP article either, but does have a German one: de:Die Story, which indeed lists Sal Paradise as the soundtrack artist. Apparently Germany's second highest grossing film in 1984, which I haven't been able to confirm; but even if that is true, I don't think that's enough to make this album notable.

NatGertler listed the same concerns when tagging the article for notability back in 2015, see Talk:Shimmer (Sal Paradise album). Lennart97 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per, well, what Lennart says I said. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - When the band has no WP article, I am automatically suspicious about the notability of their albums. It is difficult to track down info about this group, as their name is also a literary character (from On the Road) and other bands used it too including an obscure Australian 90s band ([9]). This one appears to be a British one-man techno act from the early 80s, with a mysterious Bandcamp page ([10]), while the album Shimmer has a Discogs entry. However I can find nothing else reliable and significant, especially for the album that is the topic of this AfD. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:42, 28 March 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. Favonian (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Walker (musician)

Dylan Walker (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to fail WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. The only remotely decent source cited is the Xttrawave Q&A, which does nothing to establish notability. No charting releases, no accolades, no significant influence within his genre. Tennis career seems to be junior level only.

WP:BEFORE search only came up with namesakes, even within the field of music. Claims of popularity don't seem correct. He has 5 subscribers on YouTube and only one song on Spotify has more than 1k plays. No sign that he is 'one of the most upcoming artists in the UK'. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN + no claims for WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Independent sources are missing for the article to meet WP: GNG. It also does not meet the SNG for musicians. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:NMUSICIAN + WP:GNG. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete searches did not turn up enough sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Sloth Records (Dylan's Mgmt)Interview with UK singer-songwriting sensation Dylan WalkerDylan Walker - Exclusive Interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.242.44 (talk) 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The two interviews are nearly identical and they don't do much to establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this commenter, 81.159.242.44, is the same as TripleBald1 below, because they both made the same mistake of putting their comments at the top of the AfD and neglecting to sign them. Both errors were fixed by Spiderone and myself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nobody has called him "one of the most upcoming artists in the UK" except himself (and reliable sources would use better grammar too). Happy Sloth Records is himself, especially since this so-called company refers to Mr. Walker by his first name in all its PR materials. Only visible in unreliable interviews (e.g. [11]) and his own social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand your point around Happy Sloth records. Decca records (and all others that I can see) call their artists by first name] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TripleBald1 (talk • contribs) 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Just because Decca does it, that doesn't mean Happy Sloth should, and it's not even remotely relevant for Mr. Walker's notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it's down to the artist's individual preference. Island records don't refer to Lady Gaga as Mrs Germanotta as nobody knows her by that name. I suspect Dylan is known by his fans as Dylan Walker, not Mr Walker and therefore wishes to have his name displayed as the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TripleBald1 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Approve - Good notable links, active and verified socials and growing listeners on music streaming platforms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangaroodidapoo3 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC) — Kangaroodidapoo3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve - Great up-and-coming Folk artist. Currently placed at position 13 on the Folk, Blues & Rock - The Ultimate Playlist - on Spotify. This page looks good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countrykid100 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC) — Countrykid100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve - All looks and sounds professional and legitimate. Latest track on a few well followed playlists on Spotify too — Preceding unsigned comment added by TripleBald1 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC) — TripleBald1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Approve - I disagree with the previous comments around legitimacy of the interviews and the comment that two interviews have similar answers. Of course interviews are going to have similar answers when promoting a specific subject such as a new song release. This page looks legitimate to me, and the YouTube Channel is an Official Artist Channel verified by YouTube themselves, thus again supporting notability and legitimacy of this artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusicguy70 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC) — Themusicguy70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve - notability isn't about how many likes or followers you have. I feel like that is a poor comment that's been raised and doesn't in anyway justify the page being deleted. There are many artists I listen to who are notable, legitimate and have wikipedia pages that don't even have a social media presence. This page and artist look notable and worthy to me. I also found the interviews to be insightful and legitimate too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianomanplays (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC) — Pianomanplays (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please only vote once in a deletion discussion. Secondly, you haven't shown even one example of coverage in a reputable source. Xttrawave is a blog that anyone can submit their music on. Same with Planet Singer. Same with Curious for Music. None of these are reliable, professional, published sources nor do they claim to be. Where is the newspaper and magazine coverage? Where is the coverage from major reputable online music publications (i.e. not blogs that anyone can submit their work on)? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Approve - The grammar in the interviews in question looks good to me, and I'm not sure a writers grammar in an interview about an artist plays a part in the legitimacy and notability of that artist? This page deletion section seems to be a bit of a circus to me with a few people with too much time on their hands. Without mentioning names, get some fresh air. This page is very interesting to me and Wikipedia worthy - it has my approval — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itypethings (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC) — Itypethings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve - Just reading through the comments and someone has actually said "just because Decca does it, that doesn't mean Happy Sloth should". This has to be the most useless comment I've ever read on Wikipedia. What a terribly irrelevant point as to why a page should be deleted. From what I've read, this page has my vote of approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikiman6 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC) — Thewikiman6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not nearly enough independent referencing for a WP: GNG pass and clearly does not pass WP:NMUSICIAN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve - Strong independent referencing and interview links - a WP: GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN pass for sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbobtwo (talk • contribs) 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC) — Tinbobtwo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in addition to Favonian's protecting the AfD, I have opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TripleBald1. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian: Like clockwork, the SPA's have returned once the PP is lifted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and just as predictably, they've been blocked and the page once more protected. Favonian (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fairly blatant promotional vanity article. The degree of sockpuppetry in above "approve" comments borders on the comical. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A7, G11. Most of the cited sources don't even validate the entirely mundane claims that are made.----Pontificalibus 12:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete — Per G11. Furthermore, I too fail to see how the subject is notable and agree with the nom's rationale. The socking is as ludicrous as they come. Celestina007 (talk) 20:04, 1 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. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John McFetridge

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

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not reliably sourced as having a strong notability claim per WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not "inherently" notable just because their work exists, but rather they need to show some concrete markers of achievement (e.g. notable literary or screenwriting awards, etc.) to establish their significance. But the only sources here are a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself in the first person and a cite that just goes "Publication, date" without actually naming the title of any specific piece of content -- and on a search for better sources, I'm just not finding nearly enough to make a difference. I can find a couple of stray book reviews in reliable sources, but not nearly enough -- mostly I'm finding reviews in university student media, which isn't GNG-making coverage, and a glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article whose subject is flash fiction. This just isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 27 March 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 nominator's suggestion, the editors who voted to keep the article should improve it by removing anything promotional and adding most (if not all) of the sources in this discussion to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Home Assistant

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

Home Assistant (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 is very promotional in tone, but that wouldn't necessarily be a problem if I was able to find any reliable sources that would allow it to be pruned and made respectable. My problem is that, while there are 65 references in the article, they are almost all either download sites, affiliated sites, or WP:UGC websites for enthusiasts to share experiences. There are a couple of potentially RS refs that I can read, to TechHive and Gizmodo, but they only mention the subject in passing and offer no substantive content. There's also a Wired article which seems either to be paywalled so I haven't been able to review that. Based on what I see however, I'm not convinced that WP:GNG is satisfied. I have looked for better sourcing, and drawn a blank, but I confess that software is not my forte so would be willing to withdraw if someone with more familiarity with the subject is able to improve the sourcing. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, given references are self-published ones CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 23:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am a core contributor to Home Assistant. We have put out a call for help improving the article and have received a wealth of suggested fixes which I will implement over the next few days, including adding more and new sources. I expect once this is done the article will pass muster. It would be helpful if you could point out any specific areas that need improvement as I am new to editing WP and don’t know all of the guidelines like you professionals do. Robbiet480 (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robbiet480 I've changed your !vote to 'keep', which is the normal language used in discussions like this. In my view, there are two issues with the article at present. The first one is the language used, which is not compliant with our manual of style - it's too promotional, and overall it reads more like a product brochure than an encyclopedia article. However, if that were the only problem, I would have fixed it myself rather than nominating for deletion; the more substantive problem is that I can find no significant coverage of the software in independent reliable sources - all of the sourcing in the article is either user-generated, self-published, affiliated or otherwise inappropriate, and I can find nothing better online. What you need to do is identify decent sourcing that an article could be written around. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 07:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here's a list of third party references I found quickly: —Mrand ^{Talk • C}
  • https://www.linux.com/topic/embedded-iot/home-assistant-python-approach-home-automation/
  • https://voicebot.ai/2020/09/26/whats-next-for-stanford-university-open-source-virtual-assistant-almond-an-interview-with-principal-developer-giovanni-campagna/
  • https://www.androidcentral.com/whats-home-assistant-and-why-should-home-automation-enthusiasts-consider-it
  • https://www.cnx-software.com/2020/12/16/odroid-n2-based-home-assistant-blue-announced-as-official-hardware-for-home-assistant/
  • https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/raspberry-pi-home-automation-20-01-2020/
  • https://hub.packtpub.com/home-assistant-an-open-source-python-home-automation-hub-to-rule-all-things-smart/
    • Mrand These are independent of the subject, but which of them do you think are reliable? Are they not all UGC of one form or another? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Girth Summit I think Android Central is a professional publication (apparently it is owned by Mobile Nations, and the author of that piece, Jerry Hildenbrand appears to be on staff there. I cannot tell if the Linux.com article is by someone who was on staff at the time or if that was UGC. Some of the others seem to be on a spectrum between "user-submitted content", "user-submitted content with editorial oversight" and "articles written by staff at tech publications", but it seems to me like there's a good amount there that is on the more professional end of the spectrum (I think this is typical for software / tech articles). 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Girth Summit Not much to add to what 0x0077BE wrote, except to echo that this is becoming what typical coverage for technical software looks like (The tech news media landscape is changing rapidly, and there is simply too much stuff to cover with fewer people). I'll also point out that it meets other criteria: not temporary... it has attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 16:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Disregarding the promotional tone of the article and focusing only on the notability, this seems fairly well covered in the tech press. I note that Stacey on IoT seems to regularly cover Home Assistant, is unaffiliated with them, and looks like a niche independent tech media blog with professional editorial standards. I also see a profile on Home Assistant from The Ambient, which seems to be in a similar category. Neither of them has a Wikipedia page, but both are indexed by Google News. I am also seeing a profile in Linux.com, which does have a wikipedia page. There is also a Dutch-language profile on the founder and project at Tweakers, written by the Editor-in-Chief (which is what Google Translate tells me "Hoofdredacteur" means). I haven't gone through all of the copious references here, but I think this is one of the more notable software packages I've seen with Wikipedia pages and I think it definitely clears the GNG bar — it's certainly not all UGC or non-RS content.

It is true that a lot of the references are not evidence of notability (they are serving a different purpose in the article), but buried among them is some clear evidence of significant and direct coverage, in my opinion. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'll admit right upfront that whataboutism is a poor defense, but it takes only a few random clicks in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_and_open-source_software to see this article has more and better sourcing with regard to Notability than many other open source projects with articles here. I'd submit that many open source projects that may otherwise be notable when compared to their commercial competitors in terms of user population/uptake do not have the equivalent media coverage for sourcing simply because they do not have marketing and public relations staffs that generate press coverage for commercial software companies/products. If the article survives AfD, I'll pitch in to help address the tone issues. AUTiger » talk 23:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In my nomination, I noted that sources for software packages were not really my area of expertise; if editors experienced in this type of article are telling me that they feel that some of the sources are reliable, I have to give heed to that. I'm not convinced about some of these, but perhaps the article is salvageable after all. To be clear, I still think it needs a pruning saw taking to it, to remove all the unreliable sources and puffery, and I'm grateful to Aytiger for offering to help with that. 0x0077BE, Mrand would you also be willing to weigh in? I'm not in a position to withdraw the nomination, since a couple of people have already !voted delete, but I would be content with the article being kept if I knew that some experienced eyes were going to take a proper look at it. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Oops, reping Autiger GirthSummit _(blether) 09:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I am a very infrequent editor these days and I'm very overburdened with various other responsibilities so I can't really promise to make any major overhauls to the article, but I will set a reminder to check back in a few weeks, and if someone wants to ping me on my talk page when a revamp has been done I'd be happy to give it a copy-edit / review pass. Sorry I can't promise any more than that. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my protestations that I do not have time to help clean things up too much, I stole time from my other obligations to write up my prescription for how to improve the article on the talk page. I've also added this to the WP:WikiProject Software list of articles needing improvement. If anyone feels that my diagnosis of the problems is off, please feel free to add to that "To Do" list. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Very coincidentally we are on the front page of Ars Technica today with this article: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/03/how-to-achieve-smart-home-nirvana-or-home-automation-without-subscription/. We didn’t ask for this coverage, just a happy accident. Robbiet480 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC) — Robbiet480 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep The existing references to coverage on Stacey on IoT website should be suitable as reliable sources. Stacey Higginbotham is a prominent tech journalist that has been working in the industry for 18+ years (writing for professional publications like Fortune and PCMag among others), has a verified Twitter account, appears in Google News, etc. A quick search also turned up an ArsTechnica article about how artist Lauren McCarthy used Home Assistant to study behavioral changes of the participants in her performance piece. And just today, Ars published another in-depth article. So I don’t think sourcing is an issue here, but agree the tone could use some adjustments. SeanMooney (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC) — SeanMooney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep A citation from Github's State of the Octoverse 2020 report lists Home Assistant as the second highest number of contributors to a Python project, only below Tensorflow. Every other project with less contributors has a Wikipedia entry. https://octoverse.github.com/static/github-octoverse-2020-community-report.pdf aaronsb (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC) — aaronsb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep The article needs cleanup, but it is a notable project that meets GNG with several non-UGC references that are reputable in the tech-media landscape. Sirthorn (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC) — Sirthorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• A note about off-wiki canvassing Can I just draw everyone's attention to WP:CANVAS? I'm not accusing any particular individuals here, but the pageview statistics for this page show a very sudden increase in readership when this discussion was added, and I note that amongst the people !voting keep there are brand new accounts, accounts that have not edited for over a decade, and an account who refers to the subject in the first person - something fishy seems to be going on. I no longer believe the subject to be non-notable, and I think there's only one way that this discussion can be closed; there is however a body of work to do to get rid of all the unreliable sourcing, much of which amounts to blogspam, and to trim any any cruft that can't be reliable sourced: I hope that some of the editors !voting keep will be willing to help with this task. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I came here as a result of off-wiki canvassing and I am a casual acquaintance of one of the core contributors (though I don't use the software in question myself). I probably should have mentioned that at the start, but to the extent that I saw canvassing, it was of the form, "Are there any experienced WP editors who can help with this?" and not "Please vote to keep the HA page up!" and I stopped in fully intending to take and unbiased look at the case for notability and explain notability criteria to the team if need be (as is my SOP when someone off-wiki runs afoul of WP policies, conventions or drama).

I think Robbie (who is using first person pronouns to refer to the project), did give adequate notice that he is a core contributor to the project, and I think what canvassing occurred was a result of not knowing WP policies more than anything else (and they basically were just asking for help from people who *do* understand WP policies, so it's a bit of a Catch-22 after all...). I think at the end of the day this will be a net benefit for the project, since it got some hopefully motivated eyes on the article and was an opportunity for Home Assistant contributors to understand the contribution policies and workflows involved in wikipedia — they are open source contributors, after all, and I think generally motivated to contribute to free culture. Thanks for working on this Girth Summit, sorry for not being immediately forthright about my (albeit weak) connection to the subject. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

0x007BE said it better but I just wanted to clarify that the only canvassing done was this tweet from our official account (by me). As 0x007BE said, it only asked for help cleaning up the article, not coming in to change the vote here or anything close to it. That tweet is almost certainly why there is a bump in the stats. I don’t think I’m in conflict with WP:CANVAS as I didn’t directly ask for people to weigh in on this discussion (and never would even without knowing that rule) but will keep those rules in mind for the future. Robbiet480 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Based on a tweet from the official Home Assistant Twitter account, it is clear that the company (and their employees) have encouraged and likely participated in a coordinated canvassing campaign. Thread here. KidAd • SPEAK 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KidAd, FWIW, I don't think it's a company as such, it's an open-source volunteer project, a bit like this one. Not that it makes canvassing OK and I do think this was clearly improper canvassing, but it might affect the way you feel about it. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:42, 2 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 deleted as a CSD G7, by editor's request.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luvensky Valmont

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

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

GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was already deleted also once as a promotional userspace draft.--- Possibly (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG. Nothing notable on searches... No r sources provided in the article. Not enough for a BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no point in draftifying, there are no references that demonstrate any notability. This would not have been accepted at AFC (0.95 probabiity). Fails WP:BIO, WP:NARTIST Likely WP:TOOSOON Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried removing all unsourced content and found that nothing was left. Vexations (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the creator says they will "wait until we have more verifiable references " before creating the article (or something like that), so I'll try to speedy delete this.--- Possibly (talk) 00:54, 28 March 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 22:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan J. Meehan

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

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

GNG fail. Numerous sources are blogs or paid promotion. The movement "conscious perceptualism" does not have a following in reliable sources. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I just had an edit conflict when I also tried to create this AfD. Delete as purely promotional, sources fail verification, no accomplishments that remotely come close to what we expect of a visual artist. No coverage in reputable art-related sources, but promotional media like https://rawartists.com/, http://www.vsopprojects.com/,https://www.entertainmentvine.com/ (where Meehan is a writer, per [12]), https://demouzycontemporary.com/, https://www.artconnect.com/, https://muckrack.com/. Meehan claims to be the inventor of "Conscious Perceptionalism", which is "based solely on the perception of artwork when it is viewed from different angles". Meehan "actually started working within this style as a teenager when [she] realized how cool some of [her] work looked when [she] viewed it from an angle [she] had perceived as ‘upside down.’" Conscious perceptionalism has no practitioners besides Meehan (and possibly her non-notable students). This trademarked movement of Meehan's is nothing new. Georg Baselitz has been making "inverted paintings" since 1969. Vexations (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass GNG. Graywalls (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also saw some blogs during my search, but no indication of sufficient independent and reliable sources to support WP:ARTIST or WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingual name

Bilingual name (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 on forenames which exist in more than one language is poorly referenced and has been tagged as needing additional citations since 2009. I have added one reference but in general it looks as if "bilingual names" is not a thing that has been identified or studied. I found some references to bilingual names in a place-name context, but not relating to forenames. An editor called it original research on the talk page in 2009, and I would agree. Tacyarg (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nom has it completely right with original research.Ingratis (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I cannot find this in the book cited as the reference in the first edit to the article. Uncle G (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Freakonomics, or in the ref I added to The French in the United States: An Ethnographic Study? Tacyarg (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's Freakonomics which is in the first edit and that book has a chapter about stereotypical black/white personal names and how these affect matters like treatment of job applications. The topic seems to be the use of personal names which will pass as normal in more than one language. The most popular case seems to be English/Spanish in the USA. So you will find information for parents wanting to name their babies with a safe name – see The Best Bilingual Baby Names for Multicultural Families, for example.

• Keep The title of the page in question has more than one usage. It might refer to personal names which work in more than one language community. Or it might refer to names of places and things in bilingual communities – see papers such as Minority language policy and bilingual name semiotic landscape in Slovakia or An orthodox approach towards automated bilingual name placement in large scale maps. The way that names work in bilingual communities seems to be a thing and so there's scope to make more of the topic and title and so WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. See also WP:IMPERFECT Andrew🐉(talk) 11:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is about given names, not geographic names, so both "automated bilingual name placement in large scale maps" and "Minority language policy and bilingual name semiotic landscape in Slovakia" are quite irrelevant, even if the words in the title came up in a Google search. Moreover, both of these refer to how/when two different names should be displayed, not about names that are the same or similar in multiple languages or coincidentally spelled the same despite different etymologies. So if you want to write an article on these distinct topics, that may be plausible, but the entirely of the topic at hand is original research. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 02:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there might be a plausible article on a different topic with this title (I guessed this referred to individuals who had names in multiple languages, such as an English and a Chinese name), but the content here about lexemes which are names in multiple languages is WP:OR. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:33, 3 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 22:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Tanigawa

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

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

Deleted a few months back via PROD for failure of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Nothing has changed; the player still fails both guidelines. I have checked FlashScore and Scoreboard among others. Even Transfermarkt has nothing... Malaysian news coverage is not in enough depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Hasn't played in a match that qualifies for WP:NFOOTY. --John B123 (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Following last PROD still fails NFOOTY & GNG JW 1961 Talk 15:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFOOTBALL + WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as per all above. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]