Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 08	March 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Fulton (researcher)

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

Fails WP:PERSON.

The result of a 22 Dec '08 merge of James Fulton (researcher) (started on 4 Sep '08 by Steamboat Jim [fl. 2008–2012], as JamesFulton) and James T. Fulton (started on 8 Sep '08 by Steamboat Jim, as James T Fulton). Both the first version of "James T Fulton" and that of "JamesFulton" look less like an article, more like a user page.

After 12 years, still lacking any link from any other article.

Prodded by ONUnicorn; prod removed by GB fan with the edit summary "there were sources on the article when the BLPPROD was added that verify information in the article": I don't notice any such sources other than those created by Fulton himself; but anyway, the prod was removed.

Looks in Google for james fulton in combination with any of neuron research / neural concepts / vision concepts / hearing concepts / sight research / hearing research brings something of a walled garden of Fulton's PDFs and websites, commercial scrapes of Wikipedia, and so forth. I don't notice anything else. This is hardly surprising, as his books were published by "Trafford Press" (about which, see this). Whether or not Fulton's ideas have merit, we lack reliable, independent sources about them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, and no proper references.-Arch dude (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree entirely with Arch dude. I would go further: there is some evidence within the article itself that he is not notable. Spinney Hill (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable; no proper sourcing; cannot find decent coverage. FWIW the item was 'prodded' by Shantavira not ONUnicorn and as for removal of the prod was not at all sure what sources were referred to either (although BLPPROD does say sources in *any* form). As it was a BLPPROD a 'standard' PROD could have been a possibility. Eagleash (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Actually, the prod was by Shantavira, I just endorsed it.) I do not consider the links in the article to be sources, as they are not cited as such and do not constitute reliable sources as Wikipedia defines it. A person's own self published books, website, and articles are not sources about that person for their biography. I can find material by him, but I cannot find material about him. Thus we cannot support an article about him. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for either academics or writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. The current sourcing leads to articles published by the subject, not about the subject. --Kbabej (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ca't anything that suggests he's notable --Devoke water 13:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's not much to add, article doesn't seem to pass WP:PERSON. Overall, coverage of the person is very lousy. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 15:01, 16 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 merge to Philanthropy Roundtable. Daniel (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy (magazine)

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

This is a newsletter published by the Philanthropy Roundtable,, which is a conservative donor group. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that this newsletter is notable, and there is no reason why content on this newsletter can't be solely contained within the Philanthropy Roundtable, article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Move salvageable material to a new section in Philanthropy Roundtable, and then redirect. Not seeing any sigcov in secondary sources in my WP:BEFORE searches. [1][2] –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 14 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. Happy to draftify per WP:REFUND if requested Go Phightins! 11:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio AmchiKONKANI

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

The article is built on three sources: a Wikipedia article, a blog post of sort and a short piece from a non-independent source. I have found nothing that comes close to independent secondary coverage; a Google search gives you lots of places to listen to this station but not much else. Note, also, that the creator appears to have a conflict of interest. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits on Google News. Two hits on Google Books that didn't pan out. I can't find any GNG passing sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an India-centred search yielded no reliable, independent sources. This, along with searches conducted by users above, show that it's quite unlikely that this radio station meets WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As this is newly started small Konkani community/language based Internet radio and spreading gospel songs, messages..etc. It is slowly reaching out to people and people are listening to it.. related links provided under title external links within the article. kindly let me know strong reason for deleting this article Godwin Castelino (talk)

In case any errors or mistakes in the article kindly help me to rectify the same and keep corrected article as per guidelines Godwin Castelino (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Godwin Castelino: The problem, Godwin, is that our guidelines on notability for radio stations tell us that this station does not meet the requirements to have an article on the encyclopedia. It is generally much harder for an internet-only station to meet the guidelines in WP:NRADIO that apply to broadcast stations that hold a license to broadcast on AM, FM, DAB, etc.:

Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming.

The station fails the radio notability guideline and the general notability guideline, having had no coverage in reliable sources. Delete. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:34, 10 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) 03:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Matragrano

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create

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) 03:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Larson

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

Municipal judge fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 20:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article certainly passes GNG, just check the sources. A couple even have his name in the title. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 21:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, and also WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Municipal judge is not a level of office that guarantees an article under our notability criteria for judges, and the sourcing shown here is not sufficient to deem him a special case of greater notability than the norm. WP:GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number" — it tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just the raw number of footnotes present. But what I'm getting from these footnotes is that they're almost exclusively local coverage in local interest contexts that aren't notability-makers, such as giving soundbite to the media in his former role as a member of the local school board, and more often than not aren't even about him, but just briefly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something else. We're not looking for how many news articles we can find that happen to have his name in them, we're looking for how many news articles we can find that are about him accomplishing something that would get him over our specific inclusion criteria for judges — and literally none of these sources fulfill the latter. Bearcat (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is being misrepresented if you think he passes it. For a super local official like this, we discount local coverage. Municipal judges are almost never notable, and there is nothing about Larson to suggest otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 11 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 22:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Schofield

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

This person has appeared on several TV and radio shows, but I'm not finding much in the way in sources. I can't see a way of getting this past being a permastub. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing to help meet any of the inclusion criteria of WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG all the current references are connected to the subject. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything to substantiate this person's notability. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ENTERTAINER (if that is the right SNG for a "presenter".) It looks like there may also be a COI since her head shot was taken by the article creator. Netherzone (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Netherzone, The head shot is far more likely to be a copyvio, taken off one of the sources. Don't be fooled by the "own work" field on Commons. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Does not meet GNG. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 21:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also have not been able to find independent and reliable sources, and her Radio Jackie profile does not indicate significant roles in multiple productions to support WP:ENT notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -does not meet wp notability standards. 2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undoubtedly fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 12:13, 16 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) 03:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Painstruck

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG as I am unable to find any significant coverage or any coverage at all really, apart from some dedicated metal websites. Unsourced since its creation in 2005. Lennart97 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some references in the French version of the article here but I haven't assessed them, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of them dedicated metal websites and mostly non-professional, as far as I can tell. Lennart97 (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see anything on the English or French article the meets WP:NMUSIC. Jeepday (talk) 17:57, 15 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. While weighting whether the subject meets WP:NPROF, some delete !votes are given less weight since WP:NEXIST, and WP:NPROF does not require secondary sources. There is rough consensus that the subject meets WP:NPROF#C1. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terje Tvedt

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

The only sources in the article are primary sources and I think this fails WP:Notability (academics), Noah!^💬 19:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources seem to be connected to the subject. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 21:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep NoahDavid771 can you explain how he fails WP:NPROF? He is in a low citation field but has 6 papers with over 100 citations, that seems highly notable. On top of that he received multiple awards that seem notable and is a prize-winning documentary movie producer/writer. Regarding the lack of independent sources, this is an issue but not a problem for WP:NPROF, please see there. --hroest 04:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs cleanup but WP:DINC. Besides WP:PROF#C1 as above, I found and added to the article enough published reviews of his authored books (although many are edited rather than authored) to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per discussed above article needs cleanup. He is surely in low citiation field but he has over 100 citiations as also mentioned by Hanees! In my opinion he meets WP:PROF#C1. Grailcombs (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:15, 15 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. Consensus is that the subject meets WP:NPOL. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulai Yakubu

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

No single source cited. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 18:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 18:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep not entirely sure. Noah!^💬 19:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unless I'm missing something, this passes WP:NPOL criterion 1. The same goes for the hundreds of other recently created Ghanaian politician articles with very few references. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the subject really was a member of the first parliament of the second republic of Ghana, the article ought to be kept per WP:NPOL as a member of a national legislative body. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep members of national parliaments are very clear passes of politician notability. This has never even been disputed. On the other hand sub-national legislature members in places that operate by the federal system their has at time been some resistance to inclusion of all of them (New Hampshire has over 400 members of its house of representatives for example), but we have whenever that has been discussed decided for mass inclusion. I would even argue that members of a parliament are in total probably slightly more likely to be notable than members of a legislature in a system with seperation between the executive and legislative branches, but I still would endorse keeping. This person very clearly meets inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need improvement, but members of the national legislature clearly pass WP:NPOL — it's what we call an inherently notable role, meaning that it's so important for us to have an article that as long as it can be verified that he held the claimed role and isn't a hoax, we have to keep an article regardless of its current state of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Bearcat on this one. The subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the national parliament, but it could definitely use some work on sourcing. Bkissin (talk) 15:26, 11 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 22:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Jitendra Public School

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

Schools... always complicated. But there's zero evidence this former school was ever notable. Content is essentially what it was created as because there is no info available to add to the article, nor any indication it was noteworthy. The book link is a copy of Wikipedia. StarM 17:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete: the article was created in Dec 2009, since then, there have been 27 edits including the AfD nomination. It seems there was another editor who added unhelpful commentory in the mainspace, confirming existence. Other than that, all the edits were maintenance. We cant even be sure upto what class (grades) that school provided education. To become notable, the school has to pass either general notability criteria, or notability criteria for organisations. The subject fails both as there is literally zerp coverage. The book mentioned in the nomination says "contents of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." —usernamekiran (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we started requiring all articles to have reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage & reliable sources not found. Non notable school. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:25, 12 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Church (Los Angeles)

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

Fails WP:NCHURCH. Can't see what makes it notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears notable as a mega-church, although I am not sure if "3,000 members" is very much over the threshold for that term to apply. If that means there are about 3,000 persons attending the church each week then that would definitely qualify (the Wikipedia article List of megachurches in the United States defines itself to cover just "the largest megachurches in the United States with an attendance of more than 2,000 weekly.") Its Hollywood connections help for its notability. NYT article cited is about "Los Angeles Churches [which] Make Worship...Hip?", in which it is mentioned as an example and Hollywood connections given. I am not saying this NYT article is extensive coverage, but it indicates some general notability of the place. Also it is located in a distinctive-looking-to-me cathedral building in Koreatown (I mainly write about historic places, and based on photo would think the building would be notable, though under what former name it would have been covered is not clear). There must exist past history information about the cathedral building, anyhow, which can be covered in the article. --Doncram (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of the hits from Google Scholar search set up above is this, which is "Chapter 15: Korean Megachurches in the Greater Los Angeles Area" by Sung Gun Kim, within 2021-published "Religion in Los Angeles" book. It would be covered in pages 207-210 which are (randomly?) excluded from my view. The blurb I can see is "Multiethnic churches such as Newsong Church in Irvine, Oasis Church in Hollywood, and Seed Church in the new Orange County Koreatown...." Can anyone else read it? It would seem to support idea this is indeed a mega-church and notable. --Doncram (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is one of three churches studied in a 2014 Ph.D. dissertation Presents of God: The Marketing of the American Prosperity Gospel by Susie Butler, at University of Pittsburgh:
Prosperity Theology is a fast-growing Protestant movement rooted in Pentecostalism, which teaches that faithfulness to God ensures health and wealth in this lifetime. This study analyzes how it is marketed at Oasis Church in Hollywood, California, Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, and Victory Family Church in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania. The dissertation examines how these churches market Prosperity Theology online and offline to determine....

This is one more hit in the Google Scholar search; I will stop here for now. I think this is demonstrating coverage/notability. Prosperity theology is a Wikipedia article, which does not currently mention any one of these three examples as far as i can tell. Lakewood Church has a big article. "Victory Family Church" of Pennsylvania seems not to have an article, but there is another "Victory Family Church" of Norman, Oklahoma which is mentioned in List of megachurches affiliated with the Assemblies of God. --Doncram (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This church is in fact a listed historic landmark by the Los Angeles Conservancy. [3] KPCC termed the building "iconic."[4] Oakshade (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The fact that this church is one of three covered in a doctoral thesis places it beyond the ordinary. I am not sure that 3000 is sufficient for a mega-church, but that is not the primary issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oakshade the church buildings seem to be notable for their history and architecture, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 15 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 17:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift and Def Leppard

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

Probably the only episode of CMT Crossroads that has a standalone article. Regardless, I think it fails WP:GNG since there is little coverage on this episode. Having the names of two of the biggest music acts to it does not make it notable on its own. HĐ (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely non trivial coverage of the collaboration. It may be that, and the dvd release which warrant the notability. It was the first, according to this link episode, to be released on dvd, and possibly the only one (from a search of “crossroads dvd”. Information from these secondary sources should certainly be incorporated into the article, should it be kept. –DLManiac (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move I am not sure if it is notable enough, but if it's kept, I suggest change title to something more descriptive such as "Taylor Swift and Def Leppard (TV Show Episode)." Lesliechin1 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that. Even something like CMT Crossroads: Taylor Swift & Def Leppard (redirect already exists) and rewrite it as a DVD release (I think this is what makes it MORE than just an episode and sets it apart. It spawned an award nomination and an encore performance at said awards. DLManiac (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a DVD release, I do not think it satisfies WP:GNG with minimal resources to expand the article. HĐ (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This particular episode is not notable. Mention already appears on the artist's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Def_Leppard and could be added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift. Redoryxx (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Google search only turns up two interviews: People and LA Times. So a reasonably detailed article about this cannot be written without an overreliance on primary sources. I would be okay with retaining CMT Crossroads: Taylor Swift & Def Leppard as a redirect to CMT Crossroads.--N Ø 15:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page, but redirect CMT Crossroads: Taylor Swift & Def Leppard to CMT Crossroads. I could see it being a viable search term, but I do not see enough evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources to support a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect, doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 15:07, 16 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 17:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kavanagh (Irish politician)

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

Elected at a local level only, so does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. The question then is whether being a founder of Pop-Up Gaeltacht is sufficient to give him notability. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County council is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia on its face — to be notable for that, he would have to show some really strong evidence that he can be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for local politicians. People also aren't automatically notable just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, and neither are single-market local radio hosts notable just because they have staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers. So the question is indeed whether he can be considered notable as founder of an organization — that's still not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about his work in that role, but the only sources here that are "covering" him in that context are (a) a newspaper op-ed where he's the bylined author rather than the subject, and (b) a Q&A interview in which he's the speaker and not the thing being spoken about. So no, those sources aren't making him notable for that either. Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's very persuasize argument as to why notability is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a quick dig around shows nothing more. Maybe his project grows, or he wins through at some point, but while I've seen questionable cases in the last year, this ain't one of them. Indeed some local councillors stand out, but most don't, and of itself, the office is not enough, for good reason. SeoR (talk) 21:21, 13 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 merge to Bethesda Softworks. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XnGine

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

A proprietary engine that is no longer used. It is named in a few sources, usually to say "it was used in game X". In the article, refs 2-4 are exactly that. Some other reviews[5][6] name some basic features but no in-depth info. The Game Informer source (#1) is the only one that goes into a bit of detail, but only in the form of an interview. WP:GNG does not appear to be met. IceWelder [✉] 16:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 16:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Bethesda Softworks unless more sources can be found. Could probably fit in the history section.--Alexandra^IDV 11:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a mention in Bethesda Softworks per above sources as an alternative to deletion. czar 19:22, 14 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 merge to Billy Ray Waldon. Daniel (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poliespo

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

I suggest merging this article into Billy Ray Waldon, for its lack of notability on its own. Jonashtand (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jonashtand (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jonashtand: Deleting the article would entail deleting its article history, which is not compatible with merging. To propose merging this article into another, see WP:MERGEPROP. Cnilep (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Billy Ray Waldon seems like the best choice here. I do not see the subject meeting WP:GNG on its own. I found a couple of minor references, but not enough. Jeepday (talk) 18:03, 15 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 Double Take (group). Will protect Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Willey

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

Unreferenced. All sources located only connect this person to their short-lived music group. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Also WP:NOTINHERITED. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously a fan page for a non-notable entertainer at the start of their student career. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:BASIC. I don't know if it meets Speedy Delete criteria, but it is completely unsourced/unreferenced and seems like WP:OR. Netherzone (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:BURDEN, the continued re-addition of uncited material is considered disruptive editing. As per nom and Netherzone, meets none of the SNG's or GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough sources to meet WP:NACTOR. Gritmem (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 19:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Simple English Wikipedia page is also up for deletion (discussion). Some of the points mentioned may also apply to your article. Eptalon (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't appear to be any sources that I can find that show they pass GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Except for the short period with the girl-group (which we don't discuss here), I can't find sources for her claimed acts, for example singing in 'Les Miserables'. Looking on Google, there's a little social media, but not much usable material. If Lauren Willey really was the singer claimed, I'd at least expect a role: 'Sang Young Cosette in L.M.' (thats a treble, usually sung by a child) - If the article is kept, the Biography section needs rewriting for neutrality. As it is, Willey may be notable as part of the short-lived band; I don't see notabilty of her as a single person, especially as there are no sources for the different claimed parts. Eptalon (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note I am ok with a protected redirect as well. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - I too am fine with a redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hah just realized I replied to yours and not mine like I meant to. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Double Take (group) and protect. The current article is incoherent, including among other things what appears to be a quote from an unidentified review of some other person's performance: "While she's text-book perfect for Anna, with her young, light and angelic voice, there's always been something about Einat's performance preventing me from really loving her in that role, though i'm not sure what it is." This article isn't about anyone named Einat. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Double Take (group) and protect per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I was unable to find substantial coverage about the subject.
Lauren Willey has existed as a redirect to Double Take (musical duo) or Double Take (group) since 2012 until 2021 when there were multiple attempts to create an article that were correctly reverted. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks any references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Spudlace (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Double Take (group) and protect - we should always consider WP:ATD and we have a clear one here. Obviously not independently notable. Protecting the redirect will stop the disruptive attempts to restore what is currently a BLP violation. In the unlikely event that she does become notable, the protection can always be undone by following the proper channels. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not notable; redirect unnecessary as other than the target for the redirect, the only link to this article is from an article for one song (Hot Problems) which appears to be the only reason for any claim to notability (WP:1E), but that, along with the group itself, is of dubious notability, imo. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the redirect is unnecessary, and that the song and group are of doubtful notability as well. Netherzone (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, fails GNG, and redirect would've been helpful and cheap but I don't think it is necessary here. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:48, 16 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. If anyone would like the article userfied, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hammond

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

Only a few references about being in a television competition a decade ago. From a search, she still makes music but hasn't really been covered by significant coverage since. Nexus000 (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not necessarily for deletion. I'm unsure how I feel about this page. It may very well just need a cleanup. But I thought I'd open it to discussion. Nexus000 (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources comes even close to showing that Hammond is a notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 12 years ago she got some news coverage due to the novelty of starting a music career at such a young age, but even then her music was not covered critically or objectively in any reliable fashion. It looks like she still pops up in the Northern Ireland press occasionally, but simply with announcements of some new release. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't think she's very notable, but she does have continuing coverage of her music, including on Ireland's public broadcast service, which I'm assuming is like American NPR[7]. She also has a somewhat recent interview with The Irish World discussing her new single[8]. It looks like she has some small amount of continuing coverage, although not enough to put me firmly into keep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not saying this in herself makes her notable - she probably isn't - but RTÉ, like the BBC and similar broadcasters in most European countries, has a much bigger place in popular mass entertainment than PBS/NPR do. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Taking part in a reality show does not make someone automatically notable. Doing well, even winning, might do. But for singers and recording artists, you have got to satisfy Wikipedia policies on musicians, chart placings, album sales, anything to show that you're not just a contestant on a programme "famous for being famous" and this article does not suggest or prove that at all. doktorb _words^deeds 08:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just had a quick look in Google News and found two recent-ish Irish sources that should give her GNG at least and justify her article.

https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2020/0523/1140168-behind-the-music-jessica-hammond/

https://www.hotpress.com/music/jessica-hammond-on-reality-tv-studio-engineering-and-being-a-tomboy-22821324

~~There's several more but just had a quick look. I think there's enough coverage. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)~~strike !vote of sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FlyboyExeter. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sources, in-article and presented here, deserve further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet any of the SNG's either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added citation from 2020, the others mentioned above should be added. Not sure if this is WP:TOOSOON to be keep.Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article doesn't have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. I don't think this meets GNG, BASIC or ANYBIO. BLP articles should strictly follow guidelines and sourcing requirements. // Timothy :: talk 07:23, 14 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 no consensus. Go Phightins! 11:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women's beachwear fashion

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

Written like an advertisement Darrelljon (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Swimsuit. First off, the "written like an advertisement" argument is ridiculous. What could this possibly be advertising? The existence of bikinis?
That said, while there seems to be extensive research and sourcing here, very little of it stands alone from swimwear in general, and thus belongs in the main article -- which is rather (no pun intended) skimpy right now and could use the additional material. I also suspect some of this is original research, so it would be worth combing through the refs. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The writing style is not addressed by deletion but by copy-editing. Merger to swimsuit is not appropriate because such fashion will involve other items such as sunglasses, hats, sandals, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider this, but the article is almost entirely about swimwear. The rest of it would probably fall under Cruise collection, but in this case there's almost nothing to merge there. (There's also the issue of where men's fashion would fall.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. Absent concerns about notability, problems with tone/writing style are generally not solved by deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion delete and then set it up as a disambiguation page and link to the different pages. That way we are linking the pages together? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is so broad its ridiculous. 200 years of what women wear at the beach. This impacts the article because it is impossible to have a topic this broad and not have it become a SYNTH essay, which this is. If we had an article "What women wear to work" or "What children wear to school" it would be equally as problematic. // Timothy :: talk 07:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with or without merge to Swimsuit. I searched for references supporting either "Women's beachwear fashion" or "Women's swimwear fashion" as a standalone article and I don't find anything to meet WP:GNG. I concur with the arguments that everything here should be covered Swimsuit or not be in the encyclopedia. Jeepday (talk) 18:19, 15 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Furlong

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

He only played 2 mins as a substitute for MK Dons over 5 years ago, not notable! Salty1984 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; there are plenty of sources out there, though none that I can see from a very quick Google search that would class as "significant", but I have concerns about nominator failing to WP:BEFORE. Giant Snowman 20:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in the context of a global encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created the article in the first place and agree with RobinCarmody. Whilst he technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL, he has quickly fallen into non-league and had only two senior appearances at a professional level, his last being 4.5 years ago. It is unlikely (IMO) that he will return to a pro level at least anytime soon. FilthyDon (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 63 mins of professional football constitutes a very weak passing of NFOOTBALL and I agree with FilthyDon regarding the fact that it's highly unlikely he'll ever play at this level again. Searching for sources, I could not find anything better than a brief mention in the MK Citizen and another small mention in a local paper, Luton Today. No evidence of WP:GNG that I could find. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 12 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. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 11:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Grocott

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

I have not been able to verify any of the claims about her art career. It is worth mentioning that the article appears to have been written by a family member, who also worked on Rex Wood and Noel Wood. The best coverage availble is a set of news articles about how she discovered that 50 of her late father's painting at auction were actually fakes. But: WP:NOTINHERITED.Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, her father was notable, she is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question and comment - @Possibly: as part of the checks you are required to do before nominating an article for deletion, did you confirm whether the multiple news articles listed under the "Further reading" sources actually discuss Ms Grocott and are reliable sources? I note a few of the articles are late 1980s and early 1990s and probably wouldn't be online. If they are all or largely significant coverage then the article would clearly meet WP:GNG, if they aren't then she may not, but it's a bit hard to tell. Other users like me would be grateful if you could confirm that so we can make a better assessment of notability. Deus et lex (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deus et lex: as I recall, I did extensive searches and could not find any of the further reading items online. There's a strong chance this is an autobiography, so I am also assuming that sources and claims have been inflated. For example the article says "She is represented in private and public collections," but I found no evidence for this online. I take all claims in the article with a large grain of salt.--- Possibly (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: - thanks for confirming. I agree about the COI problems, but I suppose I remain a bit worried about !voting to delete an article where there are 10 offline sources listed in the article that (I assume) are supposed to back up notability. Wikipedia doesn't just rely on online sources, and the subject of the article is either 82 or 83 years old so it's likely that the majority of reliable sources, if there are any and regardless of the COI issues, would be offline. If there's a way you can determine even if one or two of these are genuine or not, that would significantly help. Deus et lex (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly:, I suppose another way to look at this might be to assess her against WP:ARTIST. I would agree on the current state of the article she doesn't really meet any of the subpoints in that notability policy. Deus et lex (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deus et lex: Keep in mind that those sources appear to have been put there by the article subject. I would stick to what is known, rather than what might be possible. Try verifying a collection. Try finding an exhibition review. I have spent time trying and there is basically nothing out there. Notable artists tend to generate durable coverage. I'm working on translating Draft:Estelle de Barescut, and the sources are falling from the sky, even though she died 170 years ago. --- Possibly (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did this search of newspapers.com which does at least pick up mentions of older articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age (which should cover some of the listed articles), and you can read old text using OCR. There's a couple of mentions of Grocott's work, but they're minor mentions of gallery exhibitions, certainly not anything that meets the test of significant coverage. ~~I'm going to !vote Delete unless someone can come up with anything better.~~ Deus et lex (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have seen enough of these that I figured that was the case.--- Possibly (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is coverage of her relating to her own career as both a writer and an artist, including works in international exhibitions, as well as news coverage of specific events such as her reporting of her father's fakes. The sources take a bit of digging, and given her age others likely fall into the "dark zone" (older than public domain, before online sources). I am willing to give this article some TLC and improve the sourcing to better indicate her notability. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Updates done: Also note that there is a list of published sources which were not available online, indicating repeated coverage over a 30-40 year period, given at the end of the article. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Mary Mark Ockerbloom: you will see from my discussion with Possibly above that we had trouble actually identifying that those "sources" at the end of the article actually constitute significant coverage according to Wikipedia's guidelines. The one I was able to find was nothing more than a brief mention of an exhibition which is not sufficient. As an example of sources currently in the article (not the list at the end), the AFR article (source 3) is primarily about Noel Woodl the "Duck For Danger" (source 4) is just a book review, not significant coverage; the Auslit site (source 9) is just a list of two of her works and nothing else, source 10 is a PhD thesis, sources 11, 12, 14 and 15 are just notes on exhibitions (which don't significantly discuss her), source 13 doesn't even mention her, source 16 is just a mention, etc. Can you tell us which of the criteria in WP:ARTIST she meets, or is there anything you can show us which meets the test of significant independent coverage? Deus et lex (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing to add except that the editor Enoneo (who has declared as being the article's subject) has left a comment on this AfD's talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question to @Enoneo:' - are you able to point us to where your work has been covered (to a significant extent - ie. a feature article on you, etc., not just a one-off mention of an exhibition)? We're struggling to find sources to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Deus et lex (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mary Mark Ockerbloom: Artist's work appeared in multiple international exhibitions on different continents; published multiple books; and was "one of five artists chosen to represent Australia in the year 2000." Many distinct reliable sources are cited in the footnotes. Not a close call.-- econterms (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1993). The Oxford Companion to Australian Children's Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press should be notable enough for authorship, and if citation of being one of five artists nominated for Australia in the millenium exhibition, that should suffice, per Mary Mark Ockerbloom and econterms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaybeesquared (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have put some comments on my Ann Grocott Talk page but I don't know if anyone has looked at them. --Enoneo (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: answering Deus et let: I answered your question on my own talk page. Hope you saw it. Thanks--Enoneo (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to change my !vote to a Weak keep for now - it seems there may be some reliable sources after all (though very hard to find) and I'm willing to give this the benefit of the doubt. It needs a cleanup but not a matter for AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, having an entry in The Oxford Companion to Australian Childrens Literature considering "In the 1600 entries that appear in the Companion, we have selected many of the authors and illustrators who have contributed most to Australian children's literature and culture during the past 150 years." (from the Preface, page v) shows that Grocott "is regarded as an important figure" in Australian children's literature. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 17 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. There is some thought of merging here that can be pursued, though it is unclear what material would be merged is acute. That can be resolved outside of this discussion, probably. I am happy to userfy a copy of this article or move it to draft-space if someone wants to pursue a merger. Go Phightins! 11:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's College, Lucknow

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a project to destub all schools in UP: Then possibly merge. Saying Fails GNG is very tidy- but we we need to explain why. I have added a wl to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow which is totally underdeveloped- it reminds me of the articles we were proud to add fifteen years ago. It could be the target for a merge. Para one looks like it has been transcribed from a notable source as part of a batch but unsourced. Para 2 looks like a personal memory but suggests this school has over 500 pupils- so sources could be found. I suspect researching this one school, is going to be a similar process to reseaching other UP schools, so a more global approach to problems could be be more productive. ClemRutter (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has sat for 14 years with no sources at all, which is a very clear violation of our verifiability rules. A quick google search turned up no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per JPL. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I not convinced to take action with any of the discussion points except ClemRutter's, so I am relisting in the hope of getting more detailed arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth; subject fails GNG and ORGCRIT. No sources in article to check, BEFORE showed database listings type entries and nothing more. We often redirect to an appropriate target, I have no objection to a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow if there is support for this, but the article has no properly sourced content for a merge and I oppose merging unsourced content. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 14 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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Kumar Tripathi

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

~~Fails WP:GNG, also is a BLP1E known for distributing pamphlets.~~ -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 13:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Ugh,missed out checking the last nomination. Withdrawing the nomination. But why hasn't anyone improved it yet? -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 14:01, 9 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 userfy. There is a consensus to move the article to TheAafi's Userspace at User:TheAafi/Ela Mishra. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ela Mishra

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

No proper WP:RS, Fails GNG. My BEFORE ends up with no article's on google. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 13:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 13:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication request The subject is notable, and but sadly Systematic bias exists, she is a convert to Islam from Hinduism, and the Indian environment is not hidden, and this is why there's hardly no coverage online. Her book Reshmi Rumal Sharyantra was released by Indian President and received wide acceptance from Muslim scholars. See this Urdu report. There exists offline coverage about her but I'm not in position to update them now/or until the AfD is open. Hence this. I hope to work on this once I'm free for such works. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Userfy per TheAafi's request. It's true that systemic bias exists and is rampant in academia in many countries. The article needs time to be developed. Netherzone (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to improve article from sources perhaps more accessible to editors in other languages.Kaybeesquared (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the first comment itself says that she had hardly any coverage online. In such a scenario, it fails WP:GNG. It's not suitable for inclusion in encyclopedia. Heba Aisha (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heba Aisha:; GNG doesn't require online coverage. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 05:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user namespace per WP:USERFY. User:TheAafi has shown the willingness to work on this article further and he can certainly do so there. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:53, 17 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. Consensus seems to have coalesced that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON without meeting the WP:GNG hurdle at this time. Happy to userfy a draft copy if someone wants to hang onto it in case she becomes notable in the future—just let me know. Go Phightins! 11:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashira Blazer

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Blazer meets the academic notability criteria on several counts. Firstly she has had "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"--she has an outstanding publication record and has discussed the implications of her research & issues facing lupus patients on CBS News, Salon, Bustle, US News and World Report, and other high-profile publications. She has also discussed issues relating to diversity in research and medicine in the Wall Street Journal and other outlets. In addition, she has received prestigious national awards and honors, including the 40 under 40 Leaders in Health Award from the National Minority Quality Forum and the American College of Rheumatology Distinguished Fellow Award. I'm sure there's more, this is just from a cursory review of her google news/google scholar hits and Wikipedia page. Philepitta (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philepitta can you provide some evidence of this "outstanding publication record"? From my research it seems to be completely absent. --hroest 04:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although Blazer is primarily a physician, she has also published extensively in peer-reviewed journals. I think the media coverage of Blazer demonstrates her notability as a physician, scientific communicator, and academic. Philepitta (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philepitta publishing by itself does not make her notable, her publication also need to have a demonstrable impact on the field. While it is hard being a physician and publishing, that by itself does not make a person notable. The citations of her articles are in the low double digits in a high citation field. So the impact is not demonstrated -- maybe in a few years time it will become more clear whether she has a lasting impact (see WP:TOOSOON). --hroest 05:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Philepitta, I agree her broad impact has been demonstrated..--Pharos (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Philepitta above. In addition to her awards, a quick Google search shows Blazer and her work have been covered by a range of high-profile media outlets. Megs (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per all above, Although, there is no in-depth coverage as per nom but there seem to have different sources and achievements to claim his notability. Gritmem (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note that none of the above keep !votes are based on policy. With a high citation count of 15, hardly meets "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment clearly her publication record does not pass NPROF so she will have to pass other criteria such as GNG or through her awards. However, upon closer inspection these awards are much less impressive than presented: the so-called "2015 American College of Rheumatology Distinguished Fellow Award.[9]" is actually a local NYU award that is a non-notable award from a single department. Similarly, the "National Minority Quality Forum" seems to be a non-notable organization, the "Scientist Development Award" is actually a "CAREER DEVELOPMENT BRIDGE FUNDING AWARD: K BRIDGE" which is clearly for new investigators and does not confer notability and the last award "Third Coast International Audio Festival" is clearly misleading since she simply appeared on a podcast. Honestly, I cannot find a single criterion of WP:NPROF that is checked here and none of the posters above --hroest 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment, I believe you are in error about the distinguished fellowship award. It appears that she did receive a distinguished fellowship award from the American College of Rheumatology. That's a fairly distinctive award, given out to only ten clinical and research fellows annually. See here ^[1] for a summary of the award, and here ^[2] for ACR's list of previous award winners which confirms that she received the award from ACR in 2015. It is true that the reference in the article links to the NYU webpage where they list her as one of their members who received the award. I do not know the soecifics of ACR, but other specialty societies often allow Distinguished Fellows to place DF<society acronym> after their name (early in my career, I forgot to add "FACP" after the name of a physician, and it was treated as if I had referred to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth as "Lizzie Two Sticks", that's how seriously some docs take it). However, no other sources seem to refer to her as Ashira Blazer, MD, DFACR, so this may not apply. Nonetheless, this is a notable accomplishment.

With regards to the K Bridge Award, you can certainly edit it to be more precise, but it is still notable.

And I believe that you are mistaken about the podcast. Dr. Blazer appears to have been a guest on a podcast titled In Those Genes. The episode of the podcast on which she appeared, "Dat Rona" (about COVID-19) was then a winner of the Third Coast Audio Festival competition. I'm not entirely sure how to determine notability here, but this is clearly more than just "appearing on a podcast", since apparently some group (whose importance I do not know) selected the specific episode where she was featured for an annual award.

When vetting awards like this, it is important to dig a bit deeper sometimes. The original author may not have cited the properly, or they may not have made clear the connection between the subject and the award. I'm undecided on this one, but I wanted to clarify the nature of these awards so that we can all make our decisions based on accurate and verifiable information. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your digging, I have to admit that indeed some of my initial research was superficial but I dont think the overall picture changes. The American College of Rheumatology award seems to be the most prestigious of the bunch, however this is intended for a fellow in training. While it is selective in nature, it is not enough for NPROF; in a sense the award is not for your accomplishments per se but for potential in the future, so I dont think we can use this to claim notability (see JoelleJay below). Similarly the bridge award is for a person in training, these are often given to early career researchers in training and dont confer notability. For the podcast award it is still not clear what her involvement was and it would be great to have a award justification from the award committee that would mention her. I dont think any of these awards pass WP:NPROF#2 (which specifically *excludes* awards for achievements at graduate level). --hroest 04:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. According to Scopus she is far from meeting NPROF, with only 25 total citations across 6 papers and an h-index of 3. Am I missing something here that actually demonstrates NPROF being met, Philepitta, Pharos, and Megs? Hyperion35, the "Distinguished Fellow Award" is a one-time $1500 award given to people in the 2nd or 3rd year of their first rheumatology training program, which narrows down the field a lot. It is certainly not equivalent to the Master designation, and is also not equivalent to FAC[X], as she would be in the "Fellow in Training" category rather than "Fellow". The rest of the coverage seems to be brief quotes and commentaries by her, and her interview in a non-notable podcast, which was one of 11 winners of a non-notable competition hosted by Third Coast International Audio Festival. JoelleJay (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON, she does not pass any of the bars in WP:NPROF by a long shot. --hroest 04:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. She has so far a trivial publication record, and the awards are training awards, not professional honors. The article has vague phrases of. a promotional nature, such as "Blazer looks beyond socioeconomic differences, differences in lifestyles and access to care to better understand the biologically determined differences behind disparate outcomes." which is simply copied intact from the promotional reference given. There are with respectto GNG no independent references at all. This is not a reflection of her--it is not expected that someone at the present stage of her career would be notable. A few Assistant Professors have been found notable, but it is quite rare, unless they have been remarkably lucky in their thesis topic. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her GS citation record is not remotely sufficient to pass WP:Prof in this very high citation field. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as seems to be WP:TOOSOON to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article can be improved further, added citations on science communication & diversity activism but may be WP:TOOSOON although she has been awarded recognition and consulted and is a borderline pass for these taken together forWP:GNG.

Kaybeesquared (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some policy reasons and valid sources would be helpful to your argument WP:Crystal ball. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON for her academic work to have the necessary impact. And despite being puffed up with minor awards, none of them convey notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON for this assistant professor. I'm not seeing many citations at all of her papers, and the awards are early career ones, awarded for promise rather than career impact. So little sign of WP:NPROF. The mentions in the sources in the article are all glancing, and unconvincing for GNG. I'm willing to make combined cases for notability, but I'd want to see something that was reasonably close to satisfying multiple criteria. I'm not seeing it here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:46, 17 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Duncan (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG (which superseeds WP:NFOOTY). A player who happens to have played one game for a Football League team isn't inherently notable and there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed the link to Hugman's but I find it very odd it's just one game for Wrexham for a guy from Lancashire, I would I thought it more likely to play for clubs like Blackpool, Preston, etc. Searching archives for Lancashire clubs might reveal other insights maybe. Govvy (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; there are plenty of sources out there, though none that I can see from a very quick Google search that would class as "significant", but I have concerns about nominator failing to WP:BEFORE. Giant Snowman 20:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept I could have tried to improve the article but I didn't see the point if the subject is not notable. I know there are sources on and offline that this guy existed and played in the Football League and he may well have been mentioned in the local press at the time but all of those sources only indicate that he played in one football game. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that's why we have GNG. Including *every* footballer who played in one football match - in some cases even two or three matches - and did *nothing* else is not for Wikipedia. NFOOTBALL is only a soft rule which presumes there will be other sources to establish a footballer's notability over and above the standard statistical sites but not every one appearance wonder does generate significant coverage. Most of them don't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly non-notable. I should note that in the ITV regional days most people in Wrexham watched Granada anyway, and that he was born on Merseyside with which Wrexham is very closely linked. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this search in newspapers did bring up some relevant hits but they all appear to be just WP:ROUTINE announcements of his signing and none appear to go into depth about him Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable footballer, no significant coverage in reliable sources per User:Stevie fae Scotland. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 04:24, 16 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 15:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Edkins

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

Fails WP:GNG (which superseeds WP:NFOOTY). A player who happens to have played one game for a Football League team isn't inherently notable and there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who Cares, this will be deleted no doubt anyway, regardless of what I think, the player in question played one game in the Football League, which I understood to mean the article would qualify, hence me making the article in the first place, but if you need to delete it, then get it deleted. Skippo10 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; there are plenty of sources out there, though none that I can see from a very quick Google search that would class as "significant", but I have concerns about nominator failing to WP:BEFORE. Giant Snowman 20:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept I could have tried to improve the article but I didn't see the point if the subject is not notable. I know there are sources on and offline that this guy existed and played in the Football League and he may well have been mentioned in the local press at the time but all of those sources only indicate that he played in one football game. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that's why we have GNG. Including *every* footballer who played in one football match - in some cases even two or three matches - and did *nothing* else is not for Wikipedia. NFOOTBALL is only a soft rule which presumes there will be other sources to establish a footballer's notability over and above the standard statistical sites but not every one appearance wonder does generate significant coverage. Most of them don't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An 89th minute substitute in his sole game. The creator's response is telling. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to change to football notability guidelines to require multiple games, just like we require multiple roles in notable productions. Since actors and actresses also need to meet the "significant" prong, we should also ask if just playing in a game makes your role significant. Also are all Fully professional football games really at a level that makes each one individually a notable event? Our inclusion criteria are way more permissive for sportsmen than for actors, with no good reason at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no decent results during a Google search (including the main search, news, images and books), a ProQuest search yielded some coverage but none of it appears to be even close to significant; coverage of amateur football in local papers is trivial in nature at the best of times. Lastly, a search of British newspapers came up with no hits. If sources are found clearly showing WP:GNG is met then please let me know and I'll happily change my vote but nothing that I've seen so far convinces me that this footballer is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doing a quick search for him doesn't show enough independent sources, hence fails WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is not met. The recent consensus (which I independently support) is that people who are no longer active footballers who only barely meet NFOOTY (in this case, from about 5 minutes in a fourth-division match) should not be kept based on NFOOTY. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ping me if new sources are found. There is a consensus on notability of a football player who played only one pro game. --Kemalcan (talk) 14:29, 15 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 15:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Anfenee

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

A recreation of Kyle Anfernee, which was G5'd a month ago; the title is likely deliberately misspelt to avoid detection. It might take me a bit to figure (and sort) out the socking situation, so bringing this here. The subject fails WP:BIO; the only thing that got him a modicum of coverage was a brief feud with Cardi B, but that's very 1E-ish and didn't actually produce biographical coverage. BEFORE shows nothing useful – I can find a bunch of black hat SEO spam about him, but no actual meaningful coverage in reliable sources. Hence delete. Blablubbs|talk 12:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 12:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 12:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being notable. We already deleted this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreated article about non-notable individual, per nom. Spudlace (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough significant news coverage. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:15, 15 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Emmerson

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

Fails WP:GNG (which superseeds WP:NFOOTY). A player who happens to have played twice for a Football League team is not inherently notable and there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; there are plenty of sources out there, though none that I can see from a very quick Google search that would class as "significant", but I have concerns about nominator failing to WP:BEFORE. Giant Snowman 20:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept I could have tried to improve the article but I didn't see the point if the subject is not notable. I know there are sources on and offline that this guy existed and played in the Football League and he may well have been mentioned in the local press at the time but all of those sources only indicate that he played in two football games. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that's why we have GNG. Including *every* footballer who played in two football matches - in some cases even three or four matches - and did *nothing* else is not for Wikipedia. NFOOTBALL is only a soft rule which presumes there will be other sources to establish a footballer's notability over and above the standard statistical sites but not every one/two/three appearance wonder does generate significant coverage. Most of them don't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We simply don't need articles like this. If we had multiple articles about comparably low-level players in non-Anglosphere countries I might accept articles like this, but not as things stand. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after much searching, I found a passing mention in the Northwich Guardian and a similarly brief mention in the Staffordshire Sentinel. No evidence of WP:GNG being met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources available are not enough to make his page stick on Wikipedia. Grailcombs (talk) 14:35, 11 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. Given the only keep vote also admits to not being able to find anything substantial, this s pretty open and shut. Fenix down (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Heron

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

Fails WP:GNG (which superseeds WP:NFOOTY). A player who happens to have played three times for a Football League team is not inherently notable and there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; there are plenty of sources out there, though none that I can see from a very quick Google search that would class as "significant", but I have concerns about nominator failing to WP:BEFORE. Giant Snowman 20:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept I could have tried to improve the article but I didn't see the point if the subject is not notable. I know there are sources on and offline that this guy existed and played in the Football League and he may well have been mentioned in the local press at the time but all of those sources only indicate that he played in three football games. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that's why we have GNG. Including *every* footballer who played in three football matches and did *nothing* else is not for Wikipedia. NFOOTBALL is only a soft rule which presumes there will be other sources to establish a footballer's notability over and above the standard statistical sites but not every one/two/three appearance wonder does generate significant coverage. Most of them don't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - including cup games, he's played about 150 mins of football. So, about a game and a half in total match time. A ProQuest search yields nothing more than a couple of name checks in match reports. Searching Google News, Images and Books, I can only get hits about BMX, nothing to do with this footballer. Nothing decent in a newspaper search either. It's possible that there is some coverage about him but I haven't uncovered any. If anything significant is found, please let me know and I'll happily reconsider. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 11 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 merge to Aromanian language#Media. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aromanian-language films

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

Article does not meet LISTN or GNG. It currently has one entry, which does not have an en.wikipedia page, but links to ro.wikipedia. It serves no purpose for CLN. // Timothy :: talk 10:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one listed film actually does have an English Wikipedia page, which I have now linked. Although the film (I'm Not Famous but I'm Aromanian) does seem to have quite a few Romanian language sources (one of which I have added), many seem to refer to it as the first Aromanian film. A single entry does not afford a list, if it truly is the sole Aromanian film. There may be local, smaller productions from Yugoslavia, Romania, and/or Greece before the advent of the internet which could expand this into a more reasonable article, but finding those would require someone very knowledgeable in the subject area. If I'm Not Famous but I'm Aromanian is really the only Aromanian film, then I'd lean towards deleting the article. If there are smaller local films (which I have not been able to find evidence of online), I'd lean towards keeping. --PubSyr 🌲^C. 🐦^T. 13:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aromanian language#Media unless significantly more films in this language are identified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Metropolitan90. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aromanian language#Media. Grailcombs (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Spudlace (talk) 06:27, 12 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. Happy to userfy a draft version if someone wants the material to merge elsewhere. Go Phightins! 11:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ludlow

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

US Navy Captain in the War of 1812 with no significant awards or decorations. Pages has been unreferenced since 2009 and while there are a few sources I don't believe they amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Comment I think captains count as 'field grade officers' rather than 'flag/general officers'. If so, WP:OUTCOMES state that field grade officers must demonstrate notability independent of their military rank. If captains are flag/general officers, then they are notable in their own right. But, assuming that my intuition is right that the subject is a field grade officer, I don't think the subject meets general notability. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag/general officers have no inherent notability, they must satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find some mentions: this from The Magazine of American History; a mention in Six Frigates along with his brother; mentions in Albert Gleaves James Lawrence, Captain, United States Navy, Commander of the Chesapeake; William S. Dudley's The Naval War of 1812. There appear to be some more hits, but the issue is that his brother Augustus Ludlow's full name appears to have been Augustus Charles Ludlow and that distorts the number of hits. I'm still on the fence regarding notability although I am leaning a tad towards keeping. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is 16 years old and still a stub with zero sources. And looks like current searches found mere mentions and nothing to build an article from. Should probably not be a separate article. Ideal would be to find an article (possibly a list) to merge this into. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, although I'd support a merge as mentioned, but it might be tricky to find a proper home. Intothat darkness 16:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced article has existed for over 16 years. Without sources we cannot even verrify the contents. However even if it was verrified nothing here adds up to having notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 11 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 merge to List of Kuruluş: Osman characters#Bala Hatun. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Hatun (fictional character)

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

The article is almost entirely in-universe. The only non-fiction in the article is that the actress who portrays the character received an award, which is already mentioned at List of awards and nominations received by Kuruluş: Osman. The storyline is already summarised at List of Kuruluş: Osman characters#Bala Hatun along with the background, and the fictional positions were already mentioned in the storyline (I think). There is really no point in having this article and it fails MOS:FICTIONAL. I didn't just blank and redirect the page because I thought the creator would disagree with only my opinion. Limorina (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Limorina (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Limorina (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Limorina (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix issues: The article can be significantly improved with real-world information, whilst the receiving of a ‘best actress’ award for a specific country does at least prove relative notability. Granted, the article should have some more real-world perspective, but my efforts to distinguish the reception info from the in-universe perspective of the article as per MOS:FICTIONAL are being constantly reverted by the nominator. The ‘in-universe’ tag conveys the issues with the article perfectly fine. There are articles such as Malhun Hatun (fictional character) and Sally Carrera, which seem less notable than this article. Secondary sources can be found with a search and added, this article is currently in its starting phase. IronManCap (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are Turkish sources that can definitely be found for this character, as in the vein of the Malhun article I used as an example. This deletion nomination is also seemingly a violation of this WP deletion policy, as it requires cleanup, already addressed with a tag, and is seemingly only nominated due to a concern of narrow interest, a reason that this user has cited on my talk page. Neither is a valid reason for deletion per the policy linked. IronManCap (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any Turkish sources indicating anything related to this character or the actress. If Osman Bey (fictional character) was hard to create then this would definitely be. You said that Malhun Hatun (fictional character) is less notable. I don't see how. You continuously ignore the fact that notability isn't based on how much screentime or storyline a character has had but how many sources talk about the character. The reason why Malhun is more notable is because "fans waited for her character to appear for a long time", and there are sourcea saying that. The reason why this article has been nominated for deletion is a violation of WP:Notability (fiction) (which says "Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element; when a fictional element is presumed notable, a separate article to cover that element is usually acceptable."). You said that this article is in it's starting phase. If that is the case, I'd say you use Template:Under construction and if you can find some reliable sources indicating notability in seven days then the article won't be deleted, IronManCap. Limorina (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, I've seen an article that I created (see this too) be deleted at an AfD for similar reasons as this. If this is a violation of the AfD rules then that article shouldn't have even been taking to AfD. All the other sources talking about this character are simply biographies of the actress and who Rabia Bala Hatun was. Which are useful for an article about the actress or the historical person that this character is based on but definitely not the character portrayed in the series. Limorina (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, merge with Osman Bey (fictional character): this could be done in a similar way to how characters have been merged into Bamsi Beyrek, Banu Chichek and Turgut Alp (fictional character), as I previously suggested. Maybe either have a section about Bala in that article, or merge the storylines. The Osman article would benefit from the expansion too, Limorina. IronManCap (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that we merge it into List of Kuruluş: Osman characters#Bala Hatun. The family (basically the infobox) is mentioned, the storyline is summarized and if you want to add more detail to have it the same size as the Dundar section, IronManCap, then do so. Limorina (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is sufficient existing coverage, then Keep. If this isn't just a current revision issue, then Redirect. Dark knight 2149 11:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage besides news articles talking about Rabia Bala Hatun or the actress' Instagram pics/biography which may be worth an article for the actress but definitely not one about the character the actress portrays. I don't mind about redirect. Limorina (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Limorina, we can merge with the section on the characters article. I think having a picture might still be a good idea though. IronManCap (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IronManCap, you can have an image of various members of the cast (a bit like at the DE characters article) if you wish, I was thinking about doing that but I don't get the time. Limorina (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Limorina: I say we do something similar to what I did with List of Diriliş: Ertuğrul characters#Aslıhan Hatun. IronManCap (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IronManCap, I don't mind but I think it might be deleted per WP:NFCC#8 and maybe WP:NFCC#3A. Limorina (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Limorina: I don't think so, the 'fair use' rationale is the same as for an image in a character article: 'Depicts the character being described'. IronManCap (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IronManCap, you can do what you wish, I don't have a problem. I'm just saying what got the old Bamsi image deleted. Limorina (talk) 17:53, 14 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Jones Ekamba

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

This player is a complete hoax, and pretty elaborate one! Several generic online articles with photoshopped images like this one [9] can easily fool someone who isn't digging a bit deeper. However, 0 hits in typical football-related stats websites for a player who allegedly played for clubs like Lazio, Trabzonspor, PAOK etc is biggest red flag. This edit has some truth to it, I guess. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - someone that has played for major clubs like Lazio, Anderlecht and Trabzonspor would surely have reliable sources covering them and would definitely be in Global Sports Archive, World Football, Soccerway and the like. Instead we have fabricated junk like a Time Bulletin 'article' that I found (I can't link as Wikipedia has blacklisted this website). Notice how the 'journalist' can't even spell Bob Peeters. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G3 Bit of a strange one, especially using a cite where the French says this guys Instagram was hacked, data used in fabrication and a false statement about moving to Lazio which never happened, so that also implies all the stats are fake. This is clear case of G3 and should be deleted. Govvy (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definite hoax. Giant Snowman 20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to make him pass WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that this hoax has lasted over 3 years means we have to reconsider how we run Wikipedia. I think it is obvious we are allowing the creation of too many football articles and we need to change our guidelines so we end up with a monitorable amount. It might also help if we required all articles to go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better late than never Spudlace (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to admit it, but considering we have two current biographies with zero sources up for deletion right now that have existed for over 16 years, this is not even that late by Wikipedia standards, which is truly scary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure hoax. It's a shame about him having an article on the Arab Wiki as well. Should be deleted from there, too. Wikipedia is not a place for hoaxes. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:54, 12 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. It appears that there is consensus WP:SOLDIER and WP:NPROF should not apply here. After that, discussion falls to WP:GNG, and no editor advances an argument that he passes there. I am happy to userfy this for someone if they'd like to keep working on finding sources to re-create in the future. Go Phightins! 10:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward Kelly (general)

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

Appears not to be notable. There doesn't appear to be any reliable source that mentions him to help establish notability. Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copies of citations for his DSC, SS, and DSMs can be found here: https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/6116. None of them are especially specific, but it does lead me to think there might be more out there regarding his career with the 3/378th Infantry or 95th Division. One of the DSM citations is from his time commandant of the National War College, but I suspect that was more of a retirement/end of assignment decoration. Intothat darkness 15:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: obituary in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. I have gone through the [[10]] and don't see him mentioned anywhere. The lack of coverage for a 3 star General is surprising, but he seems to have had a series of low-key assignments and didn't play any significant role in the Korean War, Vietnam War or Cold War. Mztourist (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete I didn't see anything significant, either. The obituary just mimics the assignment list already in the article, and the award citations are likewise less than informative (which is admittedly kind of unusual for a DSC). Intothat darkness 14:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some general digging, and there isn't anything about him in the 95th Infantry Division or 3/378th Inf. His DSC came late in the war, after the Metz campaign which is where most coverage of the 95th Division focuses. I'm just not finding enough, so the weak comes off. It is amazing he managed to fly under the radar as well as he seems to have done. Intothat darkness 18:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry, but I really do fail to see how a lieutenant-general who has commanded both a division and a corps and has served as commandant of the National War College cannot be notable, however much coverage he may have received. This is just common sense. Sometimes you just have to WP:IAR and use it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we had any reliable sources that confirmed any of those things then perhaps the threshold would be met, but we don't. Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, if the person doesn't have that then, 3 star general or not, they're not notable. Mztourist (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would being the commandant of the National War College merit an WP:NPROF pass? Also I have to admit the lack of coverage for this guy is somewhat bizarre, I was able to find a mention in the NYT database in a UPI writeup on generals receiving new assignments but that was it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GPL93, if that is equivalent to being president or chancellor, then it likely does, although there should be a source for that. TJMSmith (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete strangely no mention of him here. Even if he were, WP:NPROF#6 would not apply since the college is part of the National Defense University which by itself may not pass the bar of "a major academic institution or major academic society." I think this rather falls under "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone" and to me his position looks more like head of a department. --hroest 03:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also to fall within WP:NPROF he'd have to be an Academic which he clearly isn't. Mztourist (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather Strong Keep -- Several sources point to him being the commandant of the National War College. I think most lieutenant generals are rather notable as I think they usually have high positions of responsible at this point in rank promotion. Durindaljb (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide those sources. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is divided and the article subject should probably have better sourcing available somewhere given his rank and commands.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Lieutenant Generals are considered flag/general officers? If so, they are generally considered notable according to WP:OUTCOMES. If Lieutenant Generals are considered field grade officers though, they need to show notability independent of their military rank. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent deprecation of WP:SOLDIER I don't believe that WP:OUTCOMES is relevant for AFDs, any military person must satisfy WP:GNG, flag officers are not inherently notable. Mztourist (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Create a list of commandants in National War College and redirect to National War College#Commandants? His rank cannot save him from the dreaded GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are four sources listed for the article, but one of them doesn't even apply to the subject (just another officer with the same name). Two of the others are namechecks (one is a blog and the other the notice of his promotion and assignment to command the National War College), and the third is the Arlington information. The obituary noted above is likely where arlingtoncemetery.net got its information, and the lists are almost identical. He seems to have avoided both Korea and Vietnam and had a more or less unremarked (and possibly unremarkable) career. Intothat darkness 18:46, 15 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Kumar Singal

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. See WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. Hitro talk 06:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom. No evidence of notability and fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only two RS discuss the subject independently [11], [12], however they fails to satisfy one of notability criteria. No awards, no historical contribution, no notable work. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom notable businessman in India. VocalIndia (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A businessman doing business. Nothing that rises to to meeting the level of GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and weak citations. appears to have been translated by an author who doesn't have access to Grammarly. Miaminsurance (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in article is about third-party significant coverage, and nothing implies general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed to pass WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 10:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current available sources are not enough to make him qualify for WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Spudlace (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:51, 12 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. Go Phightins! 11:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun (YouTuber)

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

Small time YouTuber (not that YouTube popularity is any indication of notability) with c. 300k subs whose only "decent" claims to notability are this Pop Dust article, by no means a reliable source, and this small mention in a Forbes piece. PK650 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's close to the line but the Forbes article has four paragraphs under a dedicated section heading. There are also a couple of decent hits in Google Scholar 1,2. There could be more but "Shaun" is a horribly generic name to try to search for. Taken with the other stuff (e.g. Polygon) I think it is enough to make it over the line. It is weird that these decent sources are not used in the article. It would help if they were added. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The preprint been published in American Behavioral Scientist: doi:10.1177/0002764221989781. Grayfell (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, the Forbes article is an unreliable contributor piece. SK2242 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DanielRigal. Mottezen (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about a YouTuber who isn't noteworthy compared to his peers. Geminin667 (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I considered AFD when cleaning this article up, but what tipped me over to 'keep' was the Hyperallergic source, as that outlet has positive reputation for arts coverage. I had previously removed the Forbes cite per WP:FORBESCON. I'm skeptical the Popdust article meets RS, but perhaps it could be added as well. Regardless, existing sources seem sufficient to me. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It can be a bit difficult to assess the notability of YouTubers as YouTube itself is—for better or worse—generally not considered admissible evidence. It is likely that a lot of them—including this one—pass WP:ENTERTAINER as they have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, but it's difficult to find WP:RELIABLE sourcing to back that up. As DanielRigal notes, some sources can be found using Google Scholar, though it is difficult to search for someone with as a generic name as "Shaun"—adding keywords like "BreadTube", "Contrapoints", or "Hbomberguy" to the search ameliorates this somewhat and results in a few additional hits. Ultimately, I find that Shaun is sufficiently prominently mentioned in BreadTube coverage as one of the main figures thereof that—even if the individual notability, independent of the wider BreadTube phenomenon, is insufficient to warrant a standalone article (which is something I'm not sure of, I would need to do more of a deep dive into the sources to assess that)—it would at least be motivated to merge the content from this article to the BreadTube one. Considering that the other four YouTubers that are as frequently mentioned as major BreadTube figures—ContraPoints, Hbomberguy, Lindsay Ellis, and Philosophy Tube—all have stand-alone articles, merging the content from this article to the BreadTube one would seem quite out of place and I think keeping a separate article is the preferable alternative. TompaDompa (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with TompaDompa above --Gwikor Frank (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per TompaDompa. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notice Shaun posted this article on his twitter https://twitter.com/shaun_vids/status/1372179424049790982?s=20. I would like to remind people that to be included in Wikipedia, an article has to be reliably sourced and notable. I would also like to mention that this article will be deleted or not based on the consensus, not by a straight up and down vote of keeps vs deletes. Bluefist ^talk 13:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{Not a ballot}} might be of use here later if necessary, but not right now as it is not to be used pre-emptively. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past precedent; see User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_YouTubers. We delete YouTubers unless they show WP:SIGCOV; Forbes is garbage now. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with TompaDompa and DanielRigal. Also, the fact that Shaun posted a screenshot of this article on his Twitter does not really seem relevant to me; people are allowed to point out that there is a page about them and it shouldn't affect anything unless their fans come in and change the page en masse, or something along those lines. Blellington (talk) 15:28, 17 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 merge to The Jewish Home. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Jewish Home leadership election

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

As per the verdict to delete this page on hebrew wikipedia, it no longer meets notability guidelines, and should be deleted Totalstgamer (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because the Hebrew wikipedia decided this didn't meet their notability criterias doesn't mean we have to follow suit. Please provide a deletion rationale independent of other wikiprojects.Mottezen (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the verdict as reasoning moreso than as the reason itself. the article refers to a small primary for a party with 1 seat, that didn't contest the election. and had very people vote within it. while initially somewhat important due to being one of very few primaries, the decision of the hebrew wikipedia ultimately affirms and reinforces a standard on Israeli Leadership Primaries. honestly, id merge it into Hagit Moshe Totalstgamer (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Jewish Home. This election involved fewer than 900 voters and was for the leadership of a political party which, shortly after this leadership election, decided not to contest its upcoming national election. There are only nine sentences of prose in this article, some of which reiterate information already found in the main article about the party, and a merger would not necessarily require the loss of any information contained in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(full disclosure: I wrote the now deleted Hebrew article) Merge to The Jewish Home as above. If the party would run for Knesset I would probably recommend expanding the conents to include the primaries for the list, but as that election is now meaningless a merger should suffice. DGtal (talk) 10:47, 15 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 Calpurnia (band). (non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayla Tesler-Mabe

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

Fails both WP:NMUSIC and the GNG. All sources available seem to mention her in passing as a former member of Wolfhard's band. Non-notable individually, given no extensive coverage exists, and no unique criterion of the music guideline is met. PK650 (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calpurnia (band).-KH-1 (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calpurnia (band) - Fails WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG. The subject has not demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases, hence should be redirected to the band article. --Ashley yoursmile! 07:43, 15 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Dick, Kentucky

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

After a pause, returning to the geographic places cleanup in Kentucky. This is one where the GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, but there's no label for a community here on topographic maps. Doesn't appear to be in Rennick's 1,981 page directory of Pike County place names, and a WP:BEFORE search brings up some references to the upper part of Dick's River, but nothing about a formal community named Upper Dick. Seems to fail WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Talk 04:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to me this fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. There isn't any indication that the community is notable for anything, and the only sources that can be linked to it seem to be the US Geological Survey. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the tee-hee inducing name, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Grailcombs (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable & reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:13, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love Place, Arkansas

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. Only thing of note is that it has an 'unusual name' by one source, and the area has not received significant coverage by sources that are independent of the subject Bibliopole5795 (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a delete. The unusual place names mention is only an appearance in a list that appears to include hundreds of items. The topographic maps consistently label this place in smaller or italic fonts reserved for non-community features, and searches in the places I normally look for notability of geographic places brings up nothing significant. This looks like this was probably somebody's "place" - e.g. a farm/plantation/homestead. I'm finding no indication that WP:GEOLAND is met here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 9 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. Nominator withdrew nomination, nobody else advocating for an action other than keeping. Hog Farm _Talk 06:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Davis (wrestler)

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

Withdrawn by nominator Didn't realize that WP:NOLYMPICS existed. I withdraw my nomination Bibliopole5795 (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG and the article doesn't contain any information apart from the fact that he competed at one Olympics. He doesn't seem to have won or anything, or have any mention before or after his participation.

I am also nominating the following related pages as they all seem to only mention their participation in one/two Olympics, with no notability outside it. There's a lot of these kinds of articles and I've included some of them below; I don't think it's necessary to link all of them as there are over 150 articles like these. All the articles I'm proposing for deletion are in Category:Wrestlers_at_the_1924_Summer_Olympics, as the vast majority of these articles only have the following sentence: "'Name' was an 'nationality' wrestler. He competed in the 'wrestling event name' at the 1924 Summer Olympics". All of these articles are also linked to just one source, and there doesn't appear to be any other reliable sources to verify notability. If this AFD is accepted, most of the articles in the category itself should also be deleted following this reasoning.:

Bibliopole5795 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NOLYMPICS, "athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games." —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I was looking at the general arguments for notability guidelines, but I guess I missed out the one relating specifically to sports. I withdraw my deletion nomination Bibliopole5795 (talk) 05:38, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Burt

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

Promotional article for non-notable political candidate. Currently holds minor office, CEO of various non-notable companies. The references are mostly mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails WP:NPOL, not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 13:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Burt doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG with the sources provided. Company involvement isn't very notable either. Redoryxx (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. not notable though clearly a successful business person and local public servant. Miaminsurance (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors aren't inherently notable just because they exist; Palo Alto is a council-manager city where the "mayoralty" is a ceremonial position that rotates annually within the municipal council rather than being directly elected by the voters, so just throwing the word "mayor" around doesn't automatically make him more notable than other city councillors; and the sourcing is about half primary sources (the city's and county's own self-published internal reports, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all, and half run of the mill local coverage that fails to establish how he could be seen as more notable than the norm for a city councillor. Bearcat (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Palo Alto is a city about half the size of Sterling Heights, Michigan with a mayor who is less clearly notable because he is appointed instead of being directly elected. In both cases the real administrative power is held by the city manager. Even if the mayor of Palo Alto was the actual city manager the city is not large or regonally significant enough that the mayor would be default notable, but with the mayor being merely a figure head, they are clearly not notable for such. David B. Haight was mayor of Palo Alto, but I am not sure it is even mentioned in his biography on Wikipedia. My father was in the Palo Alto Stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when Haight was president of that stake, so I keep information on Haight key in my mind more so than some other people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muscatel, California

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

Searching, once you weed out all the grapes and wine, shows this as a rail location. Well. What the topos show is a station which at some point in the late 1920s was replaced by a substantial yard, most of which is still there. At this point the label wanders around the map, so that for a while it labels what turns out to be a small industrial area, but then moves NW to the west end of the yard leads. I could not determine the name of the yard, though I did find an ICC ruling referring to its construction. At any rate, it's not a community and not a notable rail location. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because a name was in some way applied to a location does not make the location automatically notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 11 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 merge to Conservatoire de Paris. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Conservatory Flute Concours

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

Extremely confusing, unstructured and largely unsourced article. As it stands at the moment, almost everything has to be cut down. It is unclear whether the competition is notable enough to deserve its own article – almost all conservatories host instrument-specific competitions. Some key facts could be merged into Conservatoire de Paris. intforce (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Although there is some good content here, it doesn't meet WP:GNG to be stand-alone. Agree with nom that it could be merged/redirected with Conservatoire de Paris, probably in its history section Bibliopole5795 (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as above.

Merge/Redirect definitely not notable enough to be a single article but notable enough to be merged. Noah!^💬 19:12, 9 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.

[1] ttps://www.rheumatology.org/Get-Involved/Awards/ACR-Awards

[2] ttps://www.rheumatology.org/Portals/0/Files/ACR%20Distinguished%20Fellows.pdf

[1]

[2]