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. Between this discussion and the DRV it really does seem that this is currently the stance of the community at this point in time. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Xanadu Quantum Technologies

Xanadu Quantum Technologies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The community reached consensus to delete this article at this very recent AfD. The deletion decision was reviewed at this very recent DRV, where it was noted that there are fresh sources not considered in the previous AfD. I have relisted the debate at AfD for the community to decide whether the fresh sources are sufficient to change the outcome.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• keep Lots of sources, some in extremely high-quality places. IEEE Spectrum, Nature, and Gizmodo, ArsTechnica and Phys.org. Hobit ( talk) 13:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Numerous references to Xanadu on various Wikipedia pages: List of quantum processors, Quantum programming, List of companies involved in quantum computing or communication and meets the minimum requirements for notability as specified in the above comment. JamesHunton ( talk) 19:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Of the numerous references, numbers 11 through 19 are notices about funding; references 20 through 25 are about the general subject of quantum computing. 26 is a publication by the company.., So we only need consider the first 10. 2, 3, & 4 were present in the earlier version. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Sufficient coverage for for NCORP taking into account the welcome comment above. gidonb ( talk) 12:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • If you are referring to the comment by DGG, I'm not sure how "welcome" that is towards keeping the article, as he is basically pointing out that a substantial majority of sources cited in the article are unusable for a determination of notability. BD2412 T 20:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Sure. IF my objective was to keep the article THAN it would have been an unwelcome comment. Apperantly keep isn't an objective. The objective is to find the right solution for this article. Keep is "only" my conclusion ;-) gidonb ( talk) 00:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment As DGG notes, sources 11-26 can be dismissed for the purposes of determining notability. That leaves sources 1-10 and those of Hobit. WP:NCORP provides guidance on source verification.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
SPIE	Xanadu content is primarily company sourced, and non-quote content doesn't count for N.		? Xanadu isn't primary focus - 7/45 paras.	✘ No
Bloomberg	...close enough.		Stock information	✘ No
Network World			a listicle	✘ No
SearchCloudComputing			passing mention	✘ No
Gizmodo	Some XQT sources but enough not		But note TOOSOON from final para	✔ Yes
CNET	Xanadu content from Xanadu at conference		minor mentions in much larger article	✘ No
ZDnet			one of a list as part of larger article	✘ No
SD Times	looks PR derived		but PR...	✘ No
Silicon Angle	PR derived		but PR...	✘ No
Betakit	PR derived		but PR...	✘ No
IEEE	Independent background, but XQT material clearly from XQT			✘ No
Nature	includes qualitative commentary on XQT material		but note TOOSOON from the final two paras	✔ Yes
Ars Technica	XQT paras briefly summarise XQT material	? Maybe sufficiently	Although most of the article is background	✘ No
phys.org	re-reporting (no qualitative XQT content)		re-reporting Nature	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

My feeling is there's enough to demonstrate noteworthiness (ie: incorporation into an article on the topic), but not to demonstrate notability -- and that WP:TOOSOON still applies, though obviously less so than at the launch of the first AFD. Here's a thought experiment: Let's say that XQT never achieves anything more than the current state of things - some other product launches which "captures" the QC market, or the technical issues mentioned at the end of the Nature article prove insurmountable. Would you expect this article to survive AFD in a decade as a standalone article with only currently available sourcing to improve it, if looking back this were not the next big thing, but an evolutionary dead end?

Obviously my assessments above may be disputed in some cases (noting the previous debates at DRV). Where a !voter believes that a source I've listed as not counting actually meets all requirements or vv, it may be useful to break out a subsubsection to address that particular source.

Also ping @ XOR'easter, Redoryxx, HighKing, SportingFlyer, Robert McClenon, Jclemens, Thincat, Stifle, SmokeyJoe, and Daniel: ... and I don't think I've missed any AFD/DRV participants ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~} 10:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• The nature article does not meet the GNG because it does not discuss the topic, the topic being the company as distinct from the technology. The article does not even mention “Xanadu”. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• The Gizmodo article does not meet the GNG because the article is not independent of the company. You can tell by the photographs and quotes being supplied by Xanadu. On closer analysis, you can tell that all of the substantive information comes directly from Xanadu, and the freelance author has merely stitched their information into flowing prose. On analysis, you can find no comment opinion critique by the freelance author, she has supplied no creative input that qualifies as “ secondary source” material. It is Xanadu native advertising. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• So many people seem blown away by the technology and sources discussing the technology that they seem to forget that the topic is a startup company that needs to meet WP:CORP. The many sources are about quantum computing. This startup does not meet WP:CORP, or the WP:GNG, and it should be draftified as WP:TOOSOON. Draftify, and require WP:THREE to be followed before mainspacing. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Just noting that I don't find the above convincing. This fear of using quotes from the company is wrong-headed. The SPIE article puts Xanadu's work in context quite nicely. For thei Gizmodo article a quote like "Xanadu’s new devices are still very much part of quantum computing’s adolescence," is just fine--companies working on the forefront of a topic are by no means excluded from the encyclopedia. Same with the Nature article. (And, again, I'll note that Nature is the Washington Post of science sources--it is one of the two most prestigious academic journals in *all* of science--that puts it in the top 0.1% easily. Things that make Nature are regarded important by the scientific community) The re-reporting of a scientific article is *exactly* what a secondary source *is*. I could go on, but this passes the GNG with flying colors. Given all the previous fights over this, I'm not coming back to this discussion--all we do is go in circles (see the DRV). Hobit ( talk) 11:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • There’s no circling. It is simple. The secondary source content you admire is not about the topic, where the topic is a startup company, as distinct from the technology they work on. Nature is a fantastic source on quantum computing, but it says nothing about the startup company. Xanadu’s work is properly covered at quantum computing and other related articles. And writing a story based on information supplied directly from the company to the journalist is not independent of the company. It may be good reporting, but it is not historiological independence. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment The technology might be worthy of an article, but I'm still not sure the company passes WP:NORG. Commenting instead of !voting delete because I haven't done a deep dive of the topic and am going off my memory from what I looked into at the DRV, may change this later if I care enough. SportingFlyer T· C 15:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Draftify per the advice of SmokeyJoe. Or delete — the current draft isn't so fantastic that it needs to be preserved as a starting point, rather than beginning afresh when (if) the company's notability has been established. The topic of quantum computing is definitely notable, and there may be enough to write about something that the company has done in an article about the technology more broadly (e.g., Boson sampling), but we don't have enough about the company as a company to meet WP:NORG. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia itself, and so mentions in other articles can't be considered to count towards notability of the company. (The examples cited above are incidental mentions and appearances in lists, which are hardly even suggestive of notability.) XOR'easter ( talk) 16:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I will comment that User:SportingFlyer says that the technology may be worthy of an article, but the company does not pass corporate notability. Yes. The technology has an article, quantum computing, and the technology has not been delivered yet because the technology is fringe science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the extraordinary proof has not been provided. So the company should only be consideed notable if it passes an objective test for corporate notability, such as listing on a stock exchange. This is another entrant into a fringe field that might or might not ever work out. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep I originally voted to delete but I think this company actually has enough coverage between Gizmodo, SPIE, CDNET, and IEEE. I agree that many of the sources aren’t helpful for establishing notability of the company, but looks like there’s enough here without those. Redoryxx ( talk) 16:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Draftify per SmokeyJoe where the article can be improved and submit through AfC. Riteboke ( talk) 07:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep lot's of coverage on them, including CNET, IEEE, Nature, etc as others mentioned. Meets notability. Peter303x ( talk) 20:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

CML Microcircuits

CML Microcircuits (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE ( talk) 17:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 17:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 17:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd. -- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Logs: 2013-10 ↻ restored, 2012-04 ✗ PROD, 2010-06 ✗ G12

• Delete per WP:CORP. Riteboke ( talk) 07:37, 14 April 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 April 15. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete – Ostensibly fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. As icing on the cake, this article is and has always been a blatant advertisement, having been written almost entirely by CML Micro and Mocks1287, so even if it were notable, WP:TNT would be preferable to making a volunteer clean up this undisclosed WP:PAID dreck. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP, no references to establish notability. HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Unmanifest

Unmanifest (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article subject appears to be a religious concept. Without a clear religious tradition or context, I am at a loss for how to research this topic further and find sources. No sources are given and existing content is vague and possible WP:OR. Daask ( talk) 22:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Daask ( talk) 22:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Yeah, reads like OR, and some search just turns up a few mentions on religious sites. To be honest, if I had seen this I would have likely prod'd it. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Special:Permalink/218684155. Uncle G ( talk) 18:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately, nobody wants to keep this. Sandstein 08:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Memorial Pier Cesare Baretti

Memorial Pier Cesare Baretti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Not notable Dr Salvus 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 20:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• There's at least some mention of this in Italian sources. The Italian Wikipedia page wasn't helpful here, can't find anything immediately, but there is at least some claim to notability in spite of the previous vague wave !votes. SportingFlyer T· C 00:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• That's fine, everything that's in a robust WP:BEFORE search is only Italian football fan pages, and brief mentions in articles about Coppa delle Alpi. I'm reasonably certain this would pass GNG if anyone has access to an Italian newspaper archive as the tournament was functionally pre-internet, but I can't offer any more help here, unlike the other articles. SportingFlyer T· C 21:02, 8 April 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 April 8. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete I looked at the Italian language article no references or claims there that meet WP:GNG, I searched for references and did not find anything significant. Jeepday ( talk) 16:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Searched for sources since I saw the U.S. played in the tournament and found some sources: [1] I also found a bunch of potential mentions, but can't view most of these - the one I can view is the Guardian, which is just a link to the RSSSF, but let me see if there's not English language sources for Everton: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Also referred to as the "Torneo Baretti." SportingFlyer T· C 16:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) EpicPupper 04:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Horoizumi District, Hokkaido

Horoizumi District, Hokkaido (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, no reliable sources. EpicPupper 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Not really sure why this particular district is non-notable. Sourcing can and should be improved, not a reason for deletion. —- Taku ( talk) 01:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The ja.wiki article shows there is plenty to be said about this district, and this and the zh.wiki article show there are clearly sources. Mccapra ( talk) 04:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Amemura-O-Town Record

Amemura-O-Town Record (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, no reliable sources. EpicPupper 21:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda ( talk) 22:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete my search showd up lots of Wikipedia mirrors and apparances in Billboard directories of music published but no substantial sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 08:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable label, Can't find much news on them in Google. Peter303x ( talk) 19:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Doesn't match to general notability guidelines. Myconcern ( talk) 18:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of unofficial Mario media#Videos. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Super Mario Bros. Z

Super Mario Bros. Z (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This is an article about web animation series featuring characters (appearing unofficially / in violation of copyright and trademark) from Nintendo and Sega games. While view numbers are quite high, sources cited are mostly blogs, with the best of the lot being a few video game sites, but nothing that I would consider to be a reliable source. It has had a notability tag for about 6 months which has not stimulated better sourcing. I've searched myself and I haven't found anything better than what's there. Previous AFD from 2007 resulted in a delete. I don't believe this topic meets WP:NFILM, WP:NWEB or WP:GNG and the article should be deleted (again). MrOllie ( talk) 21:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- the fact that the characters appeared unofficially should have no bearing on its notability. matt91486 ( talk) 09:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete — Nothing here that constitutes significant coverage. Most sources here are primary or flat-out unreliable. Namcokid 47 17:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of unofficial Mario media. While the coverage from the few reliable sources like Nintendo Life is not significant enough to support a standalone article per WP:GNG, they are by no means trivial upon closer examination. The nominator acknowledged that view numbers are quite high, so the topic does meet WP:CCOS as a baseline and should be covered in an article that discuss unofficial media about the Mario franchise. I do agree with matt91486 that unofficial appearances by trademarked characters or entirely fan made creations using elements of trademarked IP's have no positive or negative bearing on notability with regards what Wikipedia could or should cover; Bowsette is a good example of that. Haleth ( talk) 06:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - It wasn't my intent to suggest that this should be deleted because it is unofficial, I just thought it was important to note this so users conducting sourcing searches would not expect to see the kind of PR that an official Nintendo production would have. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of unofficial Mario media. I agree with Haleth above, that there are some reliable sources, but they mainly discuss the return of the series and the Patreon take down. Much of this article is unsourced, but it does meet the baseline for notability, it would be a STUB so it should be moved. Przemysl15 ( talk) 01:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Mike Mayhew

Mike Mayhew (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

GNG Fail. Not to be confused with Mike Mayhew, comic artist. --- Possibly ( talk) 21:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 21:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 21:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete The sourcing here is not enough of the type that is truly independent. The stuckism website is not a really reliable source and the website of a show he was in is not enough to show notability. This does not add up to indicating he is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda ( talk) 22:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Reliable sources not found and Non notable comic artist. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 08:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Magic (illusion). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Bizarre magic

Bizarre magic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Full of non WP:RS or sources which are clearly for promo purposes plus WP:OR, cannot see WP:GNG at all CommanderWaterford ( talk) 20:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 20:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Deleting this article is the best solution for those problems. Drmies ( talk) 20:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Magic (illusion) (which already has a small section on it). I was able to add one academic source, but it was a brief mention (a definition) and not significant coverage. Checked ProQuest, Project Muse, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and Google Books. It obviously exists as a niche thing but stand-alone notability is lacking. Schazjmd  (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • User:Schazjmd, thank you--a merger of that content and a redirect would be fine with me. Drmies ( talk) 02:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I've copied the few good sources to that section of Magic (illusion), so that it would be good to go if we end up with merge/redirect. (They're still useful there even if this article is unexpectedly kept.) Schazjmd  (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Magic (illusion). If there are any useful sources, let's add them to the Magic (illusion) article, whose brief section on Bizarre Magic is unreferenced. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 02:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Magic (illusion): Fails GNG. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Magic (illusion): it's a reasonable search term with a tangible target, so deletion is unnecessary per policy. —— Serial 11:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Magic (illusion), and Protect the redirect as has been subject to very problematic behaviour for a long time. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Magic (illusion) Fails GNG. Sonofstar ( talk) 18:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. While not intensely strong, overall consensus is for the article to be retained, relative to the the weight of the various !votes in relation to notability guidelines and deletion policy. Here's a synopsis:

• Part of the rationale in the nomination that there is "simply no RS coverage of this person" has been adequately countered in the disucssion. The notion in the nomination of there being "nothing to indicate notability" appears to possibly be in reference to the state of sourcing at the time the article was nominated for deletion ( diff), when it only had two sources (one inline citation and one external link). The nominator did not state whether or not they performed additional source searches to better determine notability or lack thereof.
• The first delete !vote following the nomination is basing notability entirely upon the state of sourcing in the article. However, per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles themselves. Rather, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources"; "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." As such, this !vote carries no weight, because it is based upon personal opinion, rather than notability guidelines.
• The redirect !vote states that in-depth coverage in reliable sources is lacking. However, a significant majority of users that provided guideline-based rationales disagree with this notion.
• The delete !vote below this states that none of the sources are "independent and some of it is paid and none of it is in-depth", but no evidence is provided to qualify these claims. Furthermore, a significant majority of users that provided guideline-based rationales appear to disagree with some or all of this.
• Most of the keep !votes for the article to be retained are rather generic, and the discussion would have benefitted from more in-depth source analysis from all participants. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Habiba Al Marashi

Habiba Al Marashi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

There is simply no RS coverage of this person. There is nothing to indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment I’ve linked to the ar.wiki article. There are some Arabic sources coming up on Google, but I haven’t been through them yet to see if they amount to a good case for notability. Mccapra ( talk) 17:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia articles need 3rd party indepdent coverage, which is entrirely lacking in the article. Unless someone shows the willingness to actually add such sources to the article there is no reason to deem the person is notable enough to keep the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep I just added two sources in two minutes - if you Google her, you get the media coverage. Come on, folks, do at least a basic BEFORE before nominating for deletion!!! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Emirates Environmental Group, The article is short, the coverages are not in-depth or when it is, it is not from reliable source (Khaleej times article seems not independent). Chirota ( talk) 15:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Good grief. The Khaleej Times is a national daily newspaper, one of three in the Emirates. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree Khaleej times is RS but the article here seems from a contributor and not from a staff, so the it must follow SPS and seems not independent. Chirota ( talk) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply

The writer's email is nivriti@khaleejtimes.com, given in the header of the article. She's KT staff. I added a couple more sources - there are very, very many out there. She's a prominent and highly notable lady. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Google search resulted in enough media coverage from reliable sources to support WP:NBIO. Roulisegee ( talk) 04:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC) — Roulisegee ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Keep per WP:GNG. The nominator needs to do a WP:BEFORE. Riteboke ( talk) 08:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. None of it is independent and some of it is paid and none of it is in-depth. scope_creep ^Talk 10:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

You have to be kidding me. Have you CLICKED on the Google News link given in the nomination? Seriously? There are years and years of coverage of this clearly notable person. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:GNG, based on what I'm seeing from news sources. The subject is included in this book but I don't know whether that's a reliable source. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 15:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep there is sufficient coverage in RIS to demonstrate notability. Mccapra ( talk) 05:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" !votes have, by the by, the stronger policy-based arguments. Randykitty ( talk) 18:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Cultural impact of Beyoncé

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

Cultural impact of Beyoncé (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Beyoncé is one of the most acclaimed musicians of her generation, but there's not enough content for a standalone article of her "cultural impact" (at least for now), unlike Cultural impact of the Beatles, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, or Cultural impact of Madonna. Commentary of her influence on music can be easily covered on List of artists influenced by Beyoncé and Beyoncé#Legacy. Most of the content on this page (race, feminism, academic study) is also a WP:UNDUE of Lemonade, which should be included on that album's article. Bluesatellite ( talk) 16:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite ( talk) 16:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Massive portions of this article have been plagiarized directly from Beyoncé (album) and Lemonade (Beyoncé album) (the latter of which StatsFreak, this article's creator, was involved in an edit war over after creating this article). In fact, I'm struggling to find any content within this article that hasn't been ripped wholesale from another article. Even if this weren't the case, I would still have voted Merge, as other articles such as the ones listed above have clearly proven themselves more than capable of documenting the cultural impact of Beyoncé's work compared to this nightmarish Frankenstein of plagiarism. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Nitpicking. It's not plagiarism to copy parts of other Wikipedia articles as it doesn't qualify as or purport to be original work. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Nitpicking the nitpick: Unless otherwise noted, content submitted to Wikipedia does both qualify as and purport to be original work which is then licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. This is why, for example, I can choose to release my work into the public domain. In the case of this article's prose, neither the original articles nor their authors are given credit anywhere in the article, the edit summaries, or the talk page. As mentioned before, unless otherwise stated, Wikipedia's content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, therefore not only making it plagiarism, but actually copyright infringement (albeit easily resolved copyright infringement) of those authors' work as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply
      • WP:Copying within Wikipedia does indeed say it must be attributed. Not sure if I always followed this the fortunately rare times I did copy text. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and move some info to Beyoncé#Legacy, if it should be moved at all (the section is already quite large, imo). AdoTang ( talk) 21:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete – Almost all of the material is taken from Impact/Legacy sections of other Beyonce-related articles. However, I would support keeping the article if StatsFreak and/or other editors plan to expand it beyond that copied material Bgkc4444 ( talk) 11:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep – Agree with Bettydaisies. It cannot be said that there is not enough material for an article; there is enough material but it hasn't all been added to the article, so I support keeping the article as editors are planning to expand it. I'm happy to help with it as well. Bgkc4444 ( talk) 10:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I'd be up to help to expand the article beyond the existing attributed content. As previously pointed out, bloating the already lengthy "Legacy" section on her own page might be detrimental to the biography.-- Bettydaisies ( talk) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Bettydaisies, literally this entire article is copied wholesale from other articles. There is simply nothing here that other articles don't do better (well, technically the exact same). Lemonade (Beyoncé album)#Impact_and_legacy and Beyoncé (album)#Legacy are prime examples of this because, again, that's where most of this information was lazily copy-pasted from. I furthermore don't understand how the 'Legacy' section in her biography is considered "lengthy" when compared to any other section there; if anything, it's far shorter than the vast majority of sections in that article. Moreover, you argue that deleting this article would "bloat" Beyoncé#Legacy, but literally nothing in the article 'Cultural impact of Beyoncé' is original material except for one relatively insubstantial edit by Nguyen0409; nothing would need to be migrated out to other articles, as it already exists there. By deleting this article, nothing would change in any other Beyoncé-related article, full stop. If you don't believe me that nothing here isn't already in just a handful of other articles (give or take three of them), copy-paste any sentence into Wikipedia's search bar, and it'll return this and one other article. Understand, Bettydaisies, Bgkc4444, and Jimoincolor, that this entire article is a redundant fork and would need to be rewritten entirely, not just "expanded" to fill in some gaps. Even if that were done, however, it would likely end up being an inferior version of the legacy sections in Good Articles that we already have. Nothing that anybody wants to add here couldn't realistically go in another Beyoncé article such as Beyoncé#Legacy (which isn't "lengthy" by any means), Lemonade (Beyoncé album)#Impact_and_legacy, and Beyoncé (album)#Legacy, because that's where this material already exists. Not to mention that the material there is much better-curated as well. As an example, Beyoncé (album) and Beyoncé are both Good Articles. Meanwhile, this one has yet to even be given any categories besides "Beyoncé" (and even that was only done by DoubleGrazing, who happened to be passing by, to make it not {{uncategorized}}), assessed by anybody, or even have the relevant WikiProjects attached to it. Letting such an obvious redundant fork like this remain and inevitably decay into an inferior version of those other articles will only harm the project. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• As previously stated, I'd be willing to help rewrite the article because I believe that there is enough substantial sources and material to do so.-- Bettydaisies ( talk) 23:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment – TheTechnician27, I understand where you're coming from, however I still disagree. Yes, the article as it stands is unsatisfactory, but editors are planning on working on it. It is unfair to say that "Nothing that anybody wants to add here couldn't realistically go in another Beyoncé article" since you cannot know what I and other editors aim to add to the article. I personally aim to add material in the same vein as the other "cultural impact of..." articles that Bluesatellite brought above, which go into detail about the various manifestations of the respective artists' cultural impact. There's plenty of reliable sources which can be used for this, and this topic can certainly be made into an encyclopedic, full-length article. I also don't believe it is just to say that the article should be deleted because StatsFreak didn't add categories and it hasn't received much attention. Bgkc4444 ( talk) 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Bgkc4444: You state: "I also don't believe it is just to say that the article should be deleted because StatsFreak didn't add categories and it hasn't received much attention." However, this is not at all representative of my broader point, which is that not only is this article wholly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which would need to be rewritten essentially from scratch to actually make itself not categorically redundant to existing material (and to make it so 50% of this slapdash colossus of copyvio isn't just about the album Lemonade), but as an exacerbating factor, it's a carbon copy of articles which are clearly well-maintained (Good Articles) and widely watched, as opposed to this one which, over the course of six months to the date, hasn't received even the most shallow level of basic editorial oversight that would take literal minutes to perform. The two most liable outcomes for this article were we to keep it is that it languishes in complete redundancy for years, or it deteriorates into an inferior version of what it was originally copy-pasted from because of the lack of oversight. If there's a future where this becomes a decent article on its own merits, it's one where it's WP:TNTd and created anew as a WP:RELAR by someone who's willing to actually put in effort to do so – provided the material they create can't reasonably fit into an existing article (as much of her cultural impact already has). For example, the article " Cultural impact of The Colbert Report" has shown itself more than capable of differentiating itself from other Colbert-related Wikipedia content, while using the content from The Colbert Report as a jumping-off point for its lead section. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
      • TheTechnician27, to clarify, is your argument that (a) the article should be deleted because currently the material in it is unsatisfactory, or (b) the article should be deleted because there isn't enough material on this topic to write an article as opposed to the other "Cultural impact of..." articles ("there's not enough content for a standalone article of her "cultural impact"" in the words of the nomination, or your suggestions that "much of her cultural impact" is already in other articles)? If (a), then no-one has denied that the article is unsatisfactory, but we have editors here who have explicitly said that they will help expand the article, so one can't say that it should be deleted for that reason. If (b), then that is demonstrably false. As Andrew indicated below, there are many books, academic papers and articles that provide widespread coverage of this topic. The nomination's claim that Beyonce's cultural impact can "easily" be covered in existing articles is false, and if one was to make the current legacy section of Beyonce's main article actually encyclopedic (which it is currently far from) it would be much too long. That is why a separate article is necessary, just like it is for Elvis, Madonna and Michael Jackson. Bgkc4444 ( talk) 12:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep – I agree with keeping the article with the condition of expanding it, adding important information that it severely lacks. Jimoincolor ( talk) 10:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete (and redirect title to the main art.) — At least by now, keeping the article requires attention and a lot of time to verify quality of sources among many other things which could lead to create WP:FANCRUFT. In addition, WP:CONTENTFORK is the most important (and worried) point here and that's technically a problem with the whole text of this entry. -- Apoxyomenus ( talk) 15:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete (or redirect to Beyonce)--this is undue and can be reasonably incorporated into the Beyonce article without straying into excessive details. I even think "Cultural impact of [artist]" articles should not exist in the first place. HĐ ( talk) 04:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – HĐ, Why, really? So you don't want some big icons to be acknowledged more widely by their impact on others? Sometimes, articles about cultural impact of an artist is necessary. Just look at Madonna, Michael Jackson, the Beatles,... because if their impact is so immense that the main article cannot contain everything, it's important to make a separate article. We also have articles like "List of artists influenced by (an artist)" if that artist influences more than 100 artists and even non-celebrities that we cannot include all of them in the main articles of those artists (for example, Taylor Swift, Mariah Carey, Madonna,...) so these types of articles sometimes still important. Why do we have to oppose all of them? ADTN1210 ( talk) 09:38 April 5 2021 (UTC)
    • @ ADTN1210: You state: "because if their impact is so immense that the main article cannot contain everything, it's important to make a separate article". However, the contradiction in your point should be fairly obvious: as every single word of this article – bar maybe a dozen – was ripped straight from three(?) articles, two of which have been reviewed as Good Articles, this information is not "so immense that the article cannot contain" the relevant material. To the contrary, those articles do an excellent job of this, and this is clearly not a case of WP:SPINOFF. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Deleteper WP:UNDUE and TheTechnician27 DMT biscuit ( talk) 21:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I concur with all the Delete arguments above, as well as the nominator. D🐰ggy54321 ^{( the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 03:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, perhaps merging small parts of the content into other articles if needed - however, if most of the content has been copied from other articles in the "Beyonce-sphere" it's unlikely this will be necessary. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep The claim of the nomination that there's not much to say is false. Here's a stack of books and papers about the topic. Andrew🐉( talk) 13:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per nom, WP:UNDUE of Lemonade, should be cutted and merged into Beyoncé Legacy CommanderWaterford ( talk) 16:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Most of the information used in the article is redundant. The important information can be added in the 'Legacy' section on her bio page. — Tom ^(T2ME) 09:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment – The article is currently under development, and since the discussion above, I have added and removed a lot of material to address the concerns that were raised. It is still a work-in-progress (as any article is), but I encourage any past contributor to this discussion who voted to delete the article, or any future contributor, to review the article again, as it has changed significantly since the nomination. Thank you. Bgkc4444 ( talk) 16:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The article has now been expanded beyond the content copied from Good articles, and will continue to be developed, so that concern no longer applies. I disagree with the nominator's and some "delete" voters' assertions that Beyoncé's cultural impact is insignificant compared to Elvis or Madonna's and so there wouldn't be enough material to fill an article or such an article should never be made. As Andrew said, there is a large amount of reliable sources in this area, and the content in the under-development article already would not fit into Beyoncé's "Legacy" section. As Bgkc4444 said, in order for coverage of Beyoncé's cultural impact to be encyclopedic, it would definitely need this full article. Timeheist ( talk) 23:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per rationale provided in other delete !votes. Riteboke ( talk) 08:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep: None of the reasons given for the article to be deleted apply anymore since it has been changed so that there is no longer any violation of UNDUE or COPYVIO, and it is clear that there is enough content for a standalone article of her cultural impact. Beyhiveboys ( talk) 08:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. For reasons stated above. I don't see any reason for it to be deleted because the problems with the article have been solved since. Rhual Andrew ( talk) 17:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC) — Rhual Andrew ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for creative essays. Save it for your Culture/Media/Pop Music 101 class. KidAd • SPEAK 18:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep this page isn't a "creative essay" it's a page to celebrate and congratulate a black woman who has and continues to influence everyone in her artistic view of the world and none of the reasons of deleting still apply since there is no longer violation of UNDUE or COPYVIO Diol250 ( talk) 21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC) — Diol250 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  Wikipedia is not the place to celebrate and congratulate a black woman who has and continues to influence everyone in her artistic view of the world. If you want to do that, start a blog or write a tweet. KidAd • SPEAK 21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  But the person who put this page up for deletion gave the reason that wikipedia IS the place to do that for Madonna, the beatles and Elvis, but not Beyoncé because "there's not enough content for a standalone article of her "cultural impact"" and the content can "easily" be covered in other pages, but that is not true especially as the page has been almost rewritten into a much larger article since he made those comments Diol250 ( talk) 23:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Diol250: As KidAd rightfully noted, Wikipedia's mainspace is not the place to celebrate or congratulate anybody for anything. Using it as such would fall both under WP:FORUM and WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not the place to do that for Madonna, the Beatles, or Elvis either, and no such similar article is used to that end. They exist solely because it was decided that reliable coverage of their impact on culture was too broad and extensive to be encompassed within other articles. That is unless, of course, you would contend that the article Adolf Hitler in popular culture is Wikipedia's way of "celebrating and congratulating an Austrian man who has and continues to influence everyone in his National Socialist view of the world". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Very true. I agree with the nomination, except for the line starting with unlike and ending with Madonna. This page is an WP:UNDUE WP:FANCRUFT that would be better suited for a pop culture or critical media class, but WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments – both for and against – are not useful for evaluating page notability. KidAd • SPEAK 04:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

It would be useful for me if you could clarify how the article violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT instead of just quoting the policies/essays. Regarding undue weight, I'm not sure what points of view the article could be disproportionately presenting. Regarding fancruft, I think it's clear that the article isn't pertinent only to fans of the subject because there is extensive and significant treatment of this topic in reliable independent sources, indicating that it is notable and that it would "attract or pique the interest of readers outside of the small population of enthusiastic fans of the topic". TheTechnician27's main arguments was that the article had been neglected and (as also asserted by the nominator) they believe that Beyoncé's cultural impact is insignificant compared to Elvis or Madonna's (or it isn't as significant yet). The other delete arguments were that the creator of the article was in an edit war on a different but related article two years ago, it would take time to improve and it could lead to policy violations. All of these arguments should be avoided in an AfD. I feel that some people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and trying to get the article deleted for easily surmountable problems, especially since voters gave copyvio, lack of content and undue weight for Lemonade as reasons for deletion but those problems were easily surmountable and have been solved. The article has essentially been rewritten since the nomination [7] so that delete voters' concerns have been taken into account and used to improve the article, and the article will continue to be dramatically improved, so I believe that the legitimate concerns of the delete voters no longer apply. I sincerely hope we can reach a consensus on this and develop the article into one that everyone can agree should be kept. Bgkc4444 ( talk) 09:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• The discussion has been refactored. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 03:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

After post-comments/expansion: True, since early opposite arguments the article has been substantial improved which is appreciated for her literature. "But" at least for me what I understand also applies how a main article has been written to justify the creation of a separate content like this. Largely attached with this sub-article, her biography needs a major clean up in which many of new content added here, could be distributed to the main space, singles or albums without having by now this (see counter-justification below). That's could be possible, of course, with trimming excessive unnecesary details in "public image" and subsequent sections. I curiously recommended last year to re-verify in her main article the problems of overly detailed sections but I was overlooked by then active members (I later noticed that this concern was pointed out in the past before me by other users). While this could be a point to expand a separate article, there is additional points giving me more questions than answer. Let's review a couple of them:

• 1) Concerns from her main article: Details such as being part of celebrity lists like her case: "100 Sexiest Artists list" by VH1 or "Hottest Female Singer of All Time" by Complex etc are really unnecesary (I think its reduce the quality of an entry). The mention of wax figures when are common for a celebrity like her, would deserve a mention unless there is a record for "having the most wax figures" or something better like the summary of an academic/critic. Unnecessary obscure details in "Achievements" section related to her awards for examples, even if she has "the most nominations", was "the first recipient" or "most awarded" are excessive. Why? of course, her records in major ceremonies such as the Grammy or MTV deserves a mention and give a general print for those who don't know her career as a fan, but if we have her "List of awards" which is the main space for I don't see what's the point keep adding more examples. The same feelings came from decennial mentions from publication such as Billboard when they compil all-time lists. "Decade" lists could be sumarized along with her discography or distributed with an era in the rest of her body article for example since list of lists are hard to read.

• 2) Concerns from her main article: Philantrophy section could be fine if she led a charity organization e,g, givin a couple of prose and mainly if there is not a separete article for that. But immediate help for some catastrophes are obscure as WP:Recentism. Many super-stars have been involved in humanitary causes since 20th century, and can we image a mention of each decade of those who still active? Literature in this context for celebrities such as Angelina Jolie I guess could apply in a good portion of her BLP or those with historical causes like AID pandemic rather than obscure events. The same goes to activism. Legacy section in a general sense, have parts from her singles/albums such as the exhibition of "Legends of Rock" discussing her "Single Ladies" outfit. A celebrity like Beyoncé have been a subject of auctions/exhibitions and I'm not sure what's the point having this, at least in a BLP. I know, we've lines that are part of her own literature (reviews that are compared with the perspective of Carey, Houson or Dion with their voices or now Swift with her "songwriter skills"). That's applies with descriptions such as "Bootylicious" or being part of several Forbes/Time lists that at the same time could be summarized instead give a great treatment of those lists. But in a general sense, many of those sections looks like a fanzine.

• 3.1) KidAd pointed out the nature of an article like this. For me, we have good points and half-truths. In addition that her main biography looks like a fanzine discussing and celebrating how sexy/hot, generous she has been etc, keep in mind comments even among academic/intellectual responses are largely part of the cultural studies. Cultural studies has been the subject of criticism among even academics, mainly American cultural studies, which is a bit different of the British cultural studies. Of course, intellectual responses are more appreciated than other reviews such as alternative journalism/gossip comments. The criticism on "popular culture" topics could apply to articles such as "Public image of (Barack Obama, Putin etc)" that all looks like a celebrity-style articles and largely apply for a couple of years alone in the perspective of Zeitgeist. Ancient practices were also part of then "popular culture" of that time, religious treatments could be viewed exaggerated to many non-christian/religious readers ("the divinity" etc), celebrating "historic" figures ("the most" etc) and we can continue. All are "comments" of an author/a group of authors and subject of being "subjective" and many examples doesn't universal apply either in text books/liberal arts education worldwide. At least, a quote attribution helps, I guess even for a "celebrity".

• 3.2) Related with the concern of both KidAd or TheTechnician27 of the nature of an article like this and per nominator, I agree that there is a bit of recentism for having a whole entry. Beyoncé is approching a solo career of 20-year (2 decades), or almost half-century overall with her group. For a pop star, that's a long-time career. Is like seeing in timelapse Michael Jackson- transition as a solo-performer in 1983 and then back in 2001/2003. But in her case, mostly came from sources in the 2010s despite she has relevance works such as "Single Ladies" in the late-2000s. Social/cultural comments are subject of changes and like in other areas such as psychology giving dates/quote attributions are a must or appreciated. It's not chronocentrism and I'm from Gaga or Beyonce generation, but the transition of past artists with same entries such as the Beatles, Presley or Madonna been favored with the transition of several academics trends/waves, music concepts for both centuries. And in their time, a career of 20-year or more was viewed as triumph in any terms. Times of course, changes, but in their cases restrospectively intellectual comments are common, and no matters the decade (so "digital era" applies). That's culturally/socially is a key factor and more than 90% sure Beyoncé fails. I also think not all is "celebratory", because a "contradictory perspective" always apply even for a perspective of our policies of WP:NPOV and keeping the tone.

Arguments to avoid such as WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:ITSTOONEW have had less concern IHMO than a serious matters such as WP:CFORK in which nominator was right. An article is supposed to be for any kind of readers and not for a selected group. And a whole entry for a subseptible topic (or less obvios topic) is not a minor deal. Then, expansion have been made, ofc, but there is more questions than answers for having a whole entry in her case. Many points can be applied to a large list of GA/FA articles, but with the tendency of her contribuitors with arguments like since "X" or "Y" artist have this article, why Beyoncé not? is the point here. Her main article largely discuss how sexy/hot she has been, "innovator" or with addition of every power list etc. Maybe, that's the key factor here: clean up her main article, distribuiting relevant info instead a new entry. Apoxyomenus ( talk) 04:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what the public image and philanthropy sections of the Beyoncé article have to do with this article. Thinking Beyoncé isn't special in her public image and philanthropy is your pregorative and you can start a separate discussion on those topics on the Beyoncé talk page if you want, but I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion. Similarly, it's your prerogative to believe that Beyoncé actually doesn't have a notable impact as well as that this is just recency bias, and it's your pregorative to believe that "cultural studies" isn't a serious topic, but we need to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policy here. An editor personally believing that Beyoncé doesn't have enough cultural impact for an article or that Beyoncé's cultural impact is too new or that reliable sources shouldn't be used aren't good reasons to delete the article. As WP:AADD says, "Notability is not established by how long a thing has existed, or how far back in time a tradition may go, or how venerable the people are who are involved in it, or how yellowed the pages that once mentioned it. Neither can notability be denied based on the subject's newness, inexperience, or youth. The criteria for notability include evidence of the non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable verifiable independent secondary sources. Assertions based on age or evidence of age are, by themselves, as meaningless as those based on personal knowledge or on dislike of the subject matter." In this case, there is non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable verifiable independent secondary sources, and therefore the article should be kept. Let me know if I have not responded to a relevant argument as it was quite a long piece of text and I may have missed a point. Bgkc4444 ( talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete I must have looked at this article 18 times. I explain. Any article that examines the cultural or ethnographic effect of a single person on a particular culture and in a particular environment, needs to be an academic article, that examines the assertions in the detail and provide them with academic sources. So the whole article is WP:NPOV. Let's examine a couple of single instances.

Beyoncé "is almost singlehandedly keeping the art of the music video alive", according to Daniel Kreps of Rolling Stone.<ref>{{Cite web|no-tracking=yes|last=Kreps|first=Daniel|date=August 25, 2014|title=Watch Beyonce Sing Every Song on New Album at VMAs|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/beyonce-rips-through-album-medley-at-vmas-2014-53785/|access-date=April 9, 2021|website=Rolling Stone|language=en-US}}</ref> How is it provable by a staff writer at Rolling Stone magazine? It is entirely subjective. Also, almost all the references are American sources. Did she tour? What about the dynamic video culture in South Korea. There are reams of these assertions. Here is another one, Beyoncé is widely credited with the invention of the surprise album. Apart from being untrue, it like it's inside its own bubble, that only came into existence in the '90s. It is junk and completely unbalanced. It doesn't recognize the cognizance of other culture, is unbalanced, lots of it is untrue, and probably subjective. Here is another statement:Beyoncé is credited that is repeated several times in the article. The reference says, in a decent paper by the way, He and Beyonce were later credited with helping to mobilise the black vote in the election of the first African-American president. The way to measure and examine how people are swayed by the pop-cultural icons is is detailed, ultra-complex and intricate. All sorts of factors come into play and very very rarely does ut involve cultural icons telling them to do. Almost always, it is the basics, health, a roof over your head and taxes. So to say that in an encyclopedia which represents the truth, for a one-line sentence is decent paper, to build a section, is beyond a joke. It is meaningless and subjective and it needs to be deleted. scope_creep ^Talk 18:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was not keep per snowball clause . This article is obviously not going to be kept being a duplicate of the other article. Actual action is to merge to Killing of Adam Toledo.

If the other article should be deleted for other reasons, then nominate the other article instead. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 16:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Shooting of Adam Toledo

Shooting of Adam Toledo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or newswire service. I'm getting awfully tired of Wikipedians either moonlighting as journalists or racing to create anemic pages for current news events without any regard for our notability standards. KidAd • SPEAK 20:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep Today, I searched out an article on Adam Toledo. There is interest in the topic because police in Canada and the USA are making questionable decisions on the use of deadly force. There are other similar articles. If such articles are to be banned, what are your criteria? TheTrolleyPole ( talk) 20:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Is the story notable? It's being covered by all major news outlets, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. Even "foreign" news like BBC. Guardian, Independent, etc. Is the page "anemic"? Yeah, all pages have to start somewhere. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 20:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Killing of Adam Toledo. Garcia1865 ( talk) 20:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Killing of Adam Toledo : article subject already exist CommanderWaterford ( talk) 20:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Killing of Adam Toledo , don't think this needs an explanation; page already exists. ( talk) 21:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Killing of Adam Toledo. This is not to say that I am convinced it is a notable event. However clearly we should not have two articles on the exact same or essentially the same topic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Killing of Adam Toledo since it's the same subject. TheAmazingRaspberry ( talk) 22:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Killing of Adam Toledo per others Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 23:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Killing of Adam Toledo per others Doctormatt ( talk) 23:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge and somebody should just do that now per WP:SNOW. nableezy - 23:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete the page currently named Shooting of Adam Toledo (page ID 67410522) per WP:CSD#G6 because it's not what this AfD is actually about; then Move Back The Shooting of Adam Toledo (page ID 67408206) to Shooting of Adam Toledo to preserve the page history, because that's the actual Wikipedia page this AfD is about, but the page was moved by Aplucas0703 ( talk · contribs) almost 6 hours after the AfD was started; then change that page to a Redirect to Killing of Adam Toledo like it's supposed to be. (Don't move pages during AfDs, folks!) That article was actually created 30 minutes before Killing of Adam Toledo, but was substub with nothing worth merging now that Killing of Adam Toledo has been expanded on its own. The creations happened closely enough in time that it's plausable that an editor searched for an existing article, saw no results, and took longer than 30 minutes in good faith to create a new article. That said, I agree with the nominator's complaint about the general anti-collaborative obsession with inserting breaking news on Wikipedia on the pretense that the content will meet the guidelines for permanent inclusion once it's already inserted: The act of inserting is itself a violation of WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:RECENTISM in spirit, because it still interferes with Wikipedia through high rates of edit conflicts and duplicate articles like we saw here. -- Closeapple ( talk) 06:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  I have restored the situation to when it was nominated. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 16:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Sinhgad Institute of Technology and Science

Sinhgad Institute of Technology and Science (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

No RS found to support NSCHOOLS. Found a few primary sources, press releases, paid content none of which supports notability. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 15:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke ( talk) 07:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: as per nom. Clearly lacks notability defcon5 ( talk) 15:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Viswajyothi College of Engineering and Technology

Viswajyothi College of Engineering and Technology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

No independent reliable sources to have an independent article. This [8] is the only reliable source found in doing a WP:BEFORE, which makes a mention about the college regarding an event conducted by their students. The article fails both NORG as well as GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete another private educational institute with no claim of notability. Riteboke ( talk) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

• Delete: lacks independent reliable sources defcon5 ( talk) 05:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NCRIC creates a rebuttable presumption of notability, which has been rebutted here because nobody has found WP:GNG-compliant sources. Sandstein 08:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Prateek Sinha

Prateek Sinha (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda ( talk) 22:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep played in eight F/C matches. At worst, redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers Has played 8 FC matches, and there is a reasonable amount of coverage in match reports, but probably not enough to pass GNG. Sources may exist in Indian sources though. Redirect is a good WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Eight first class matches, including 18 wickets, which were in the Ranji Trophy, so a clear pass of WP:NCRIC. It's unlikely that there has been no newspaper coverage in India of a regular Ranji Trophy player, although that may well be in non-English sources and may not be online. Really strong scope to pass WP:GNG, even if he doesn't play any more first-class games (and, at 28, he might yet do so). DevaCat1 ( talk) 20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete the sourcing in no way meets GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  As you should be well aware, John, that's no kind of argument for deletion- it is the notability of the subject which is at issue, not how well the current iteration of the article is sourced (see WP:ARTN). DevaCat1 ( talk) 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  No, verifiabilty rules clearly state that articles need to be sourced. No one here has argued in any way such sources exist, and verifiability clearly means they need to be attached to the article. People need to stop invalid claims sources are out there and start actually telling us precisely where they are. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect or delete, per nom and Rugbyfan. Well within the internet era, if SIGCOV exists it should be online and searchable. NCRIC isn't a free, indefinite pass for everyone who might possibly have coverage in another language. JoelleJay ( talk) 05:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:NCRIC. Riteboke ( talk) 07:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Per DevaCat. StickyWicket ( talk) 21:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Meeting an SNG such as NCRIC is a shortcut to identify subjectsthat are likely to meet our notability requirements. This is handy when creating new articles or preventing articles to be speedy deleted or PRODded. However, if a subject is challenged at AfD, it is not enough any more to simply say "meets NCRIC". Instead, it actually has to be shown that in this particular instance the SNG correctly predicted notability, that is, it has to be shown that GNG is met. As Johnpacklambert has already observed, no sources meeting GNG have been found by the participants in this debate. Here, GNG is not met. -- Randykitty ( talk) 21:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring socks and SPAs, consensus seems to be clear. Randykitty ( talk) 11:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Pavithra Lakshmi

Pavithra Lakshmi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The subject fails WP:NACTOR. In my opinion, it just a promotional page as the subject participated in the recently aired reality tv show Cooku with Comali. The page was recently deleted by WP:PROD. I request to create an afd discussion for this article. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:698A:F734:4973:AE2B (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Created with comment left at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion by IP. ~ GB fan 20:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. If she would have won any of these TV shows, it might have been a different case. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 03:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note - IP 58.108.86.194 removed this comment [9] from this discussion. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Person has won modeling competitions and is acting few movies this year. 03:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Approves WP:GNG subject has appeared in Cooku with Comali which is one of the most notable shows in Tamil Nadu and the person was recognized by participating in that show as a contestant. 03:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.40.69 ( talk)
  • Note:Double voting has been striked out. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Completely agreeing with nom. Just a promotional article for a non notable actress. Fails NACTOR as well as GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 04:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - utterly non notable. Kudos to the IP nom - I love seeing that! schetm ( talk) 05:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note - IP 58.108.86.194 removed this comment [10] from this discussion.

• Keep - This person has proper references about them to support WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal.Choudary2 ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  Note: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Romil.Choudary. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep subjects like this must be evaluated compared to other artist in their own country and not be based to the US actor standards. As an Indian actress she seems to meet WP:NACTOR with significant news coverage in her own country and many movies. She also has been on TV shows, which presumably is on Indian TV's. Peter303x ( talk) 23:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Since I nominated the page, my opinion might be biased. In any case, I would like to poitn out few things. Even in the standards for Indian actress, the subject does not seems to qualify for a wiki page. As far as the films are concerned, there is an extremely minor uncredited role in O Kadhal Kanmani and a short film 3 Scenes of his Love Story and that's it; other credits mentioned in the article are not released yet. As far as the television appearance, she appeared in 3 reality shows (as per the article), in all of which, she is just merely a participant (in the sense that she did not win anything nor she became a runner up). It is not surprising to see that the article has been created twice recently just because of her appearance in Cooku with Comali which recently aired (where she was the fourth runner up) and not because of her notability. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:999C:DB59:A7C6:A68A ( talk) 03:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The subject is currently acting in a good amount of films this year. the subject doesn't have to be a winner of a competition just to be on Wikipedia. 04:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.40.69 ( talk)
    • According to the page, there is only one movie which is in post-production and the other two do not even have a title name for the movie. Even if what you are saying is true and that you can establish with reliable sources, it may be too soon ( WP:TOOSOON) to create a page for the subject. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:999C:DB59:A7C6:A68A ( talk) 04:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Eventually the subject's film names are going announced soon... and the post production film the subject is acting in she is doing the lead role for the film. please consider changing your vote. 04:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.40.69 ( talk)

• Delete: WP:TOOSOON existing work does not meet WP:NACTOR criteria of multiple works with significant roles. there also feels like some meatpuppetry is happening here. Bilal.Choudary2, Romil.Choudary and 58.108.86.194 consistently edit similar articles. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note - IP 58.108.86.194 removed this comment [11] from this discussion. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strongly Keep: This article has reliable sources showing evidence about the person this article is created for and it supports WP:NACTOR strongly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romil.Choudary ( talk • contribs) 03:23, April 19, 2021 (UTC)

  Note: Please also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Romil.Choudary before closing. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 11:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Devin Caherly

Devin Caherly (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and reads like promotional content in my opinion. No verifiable articles online to substantiate that he is a known business person, which is the first line of the article. Also, I don't consider having a TikTok account with a large following enough to satisfy the requirement for inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially in a day and age where social media followers can be purchased. Topic appears to be promotional content and nothing more. Megtetg34 ( talk) 00:01, 4 April 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 April 4. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no claim of notability, fails WP:GNG. Riteboke ( talk) 07:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)# reply
• Keep Pass WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources such as the ones here [ [12]] [ [13]] Northern Escapee ( talk) 07:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep I find it absurd that the NY Times gave substantial coverage to him, but so they did, and I think we must accept their judgment,. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. One article in the NYT isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. Neither is 2. I'm not seeing in-depth significant coverage in multiple RS and biographical articles needs at least WP:3REFS as bare minimum. Megtetg34 ( talk) 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:ENT (large fan base) and WP:SIGCOV. Caherly is a social media personality. There are at least 3 separate instances of his posts generating coverage in reliable sources: POV meme [14], TikTok duets [15] [16], and social media trends [17]. Nomination reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TJMSmith ( talk) 23:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• My nom is baked in WP policy, and nothing else. I see that you created the article, and have been editing it since the nom. Perhaps you have a connection to topic, or your opposition is more a case of WP:ILIKEIT? Megtetg34 ( talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• For clarification: Source 1 is a local, neighborhood publication. Doesn't pass WP:NEWSORG. Source 2 talks about one of his posts, not him, and only mentions his username. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources 3 and 4, talk about his relationship with another social media star, Tatayanna Mitchell, who's Wikipedia page has also since been deleted. Source 5 is about one of his social media posts, not WP:SIGCOV of the topic himself. The argument that the topic meets WP:ENT based on criterion #2 large fan base is referenced in WP:YOUTUBE: A frequent argument put forward for keeping the article is that a subject is notable because of their number of subscribers or the number of times their videos have been viewed. There are other trivial or passing mentions of his name, and/or TikTok name on other, unverified sources, however they lack depth, and the only other sources I found that offered deep coverage on him was on hiseye.org, which is the publication of a high school in which he went to, vizaca.com, a submit your own interview/content website, and celebpie.com, a social media directory. So, until WP policy is amended to allow social media personalities in with big follower counts, there should still be WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to warrant encyclopedic inclusion and I have found nothing additional to meet GNG criterion for this topic. Hence, the nomination. Megtetg34 ( talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. After substantial improvements to the artice just before the last relist, the consensus has changed to the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 09:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Pt. Sundarlal Sharma

Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Nothing to suggest notability; the two sources cited barely provide passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG, and by some margin. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete the sourcing is not substantial enough to demonstrate Sharma was a notable individual. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment, while I'm not offering this as a WP:RS, this blog post indicates that there is more to this person than this Wiki stub. Perhaps someone that is familiar with the history of Chhattisgarh could comment. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 10:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No claim of notability. Riteboke ( talk) 16:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, this looks good enough to me. I will expand the article now.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 17:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Now, whoever reads Hindi, there is a book about this guy.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Clearly a very notable figure in Chhatistisgarhi history. Aside from the information already included, here is a link to an academic source for his role in the Kandel Nahar Satygraha [18] and a link showing India printing a stamp in his honor 50 years after his death. [19]

I would normally let the links speak for themselves, but the process by which this article got to AFD is, quite frankly, abusive. An Indian editor creates a stub article on a prominent regional figure, giving two sources in support. Six hours later it has an incorrect BLP tag and gets nominated for deletion. Aside from ignoring the clear advice given at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, the nominator overlooked criterion #1 at WP:ANYBIO, which explains that people with significant honors, such as having a university named for you decades after your death, are likely to be notable.

Although the editing process has improved the article, the fact that two of the first three comments are basically drive-by deletion support leaves me concerned that articles that actually pass the 100 year test [20] do not last for 400 minutes before going to AFD. I hope Wikipedia never reaches the point where editors believe such deletionism is good for the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:660e:ede0:e827:9d4b:3e61:4271 ( talk) 09:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per WP:HEY, and passes:

• WP:ANYBIO #1, “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor,” – the Pandit Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University is named after him.
• WP:ANYBIO #2, “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.” – his involvement in the Indian independence movement and the Kadel Nahar Satyaghara.

SailingInABathTub ( talk) 11:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep: The person in question seems notable. But yes the article needs significant work. defcon5 ( talk) 06:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Milwaukee County Transit System. There is a clear consensus that this article should be deleted, with some participants supporting a merge. This should be done very selectively and the article should afterwards be made into a redirect, which (even though an unlikely search term) should be kept for reasons of attribution. Randykitty ( talk) 12:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Milwaukee County Transit System bus fleet

Milwaukee County Transit System bus fleet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable topic, no reliable sources... Delete. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 22:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC), merge back into the parent article. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 13:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 22:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 22:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 22:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a bus enthusiast's fansite. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep The nomination's claims are false as there are extensive accounts of the MCTS fleet in numerous documents – see above. This seems to be a WP:DRIVEBY which does not appreciate this is a split from Milwaukee_County_Transit_System#Bus_fleet. There are therefore obvious alternatives to deletion whiuch we prefer per policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉( talk) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• As per the WP:GNG, I am not seeing significant secondary sources about the bus fleet system itself. Most of the sources you provided in the article are self published sources hosted on youtube. These do not establish notability, although they may be used to expand and develop the content in the article. In many transit systems across the world, the fleet of cars (in this case: busses), is generally not notable on its own, and is instead a part of the parent article ( Milwaukee County Transit System). I recognize that this was split from the parent article, but the bus fleet is not notable on its own. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 13:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep or limited inclusion on parent article Over the last several years, it was recommended the MCTS fleet be contented forked which is why I created an article on the fleet. It consumed too much on the main MCTS article. Other transit systems have articles on their fleets such as Orlando, LA, NYC, Chicago, ect but if we delete this, then we have to delete other bus fleet articles. If this is deleted, I would suggest there is a very limited inclusion on the main article so that it does not drag the overall quality of the article down. Asher Heimermann ( talk)

  Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – Fredddie ™ 22:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge and trim WP:NOT (particularly the parts about not being a database or a directory-like listing) and WP:FANCRUFT (as this would not be of interest to many beyond, as Ajf773 points out, "bus enthusiasts") seem to apply here. The main table, trimmed of some columns and possibly made into a short paragraph of prose (as already appears to exist at the main article), seems more than enough, and because said article is so short, I fail to see how a split would be justified even if this were not fancruft. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. How do you source this or establish notability of the bus fleet separately from the transit system? – Fredddie ™ 22:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply
•  Comment: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Milwaukee County Transit System bus routes, which was created by the same author. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 13:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as no evidence of any notability, Also Youtube should generally be avoided as a source because once the video's deleted we have nothing ....., Fails NOTDIR and GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 13:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: WP:Link rot is not necessarily a reason to not-use YouTube (we have archiving websites). YouTube is generally a self published source, because there is no editoral review on any video. However, if a video author would be considered reliable outside of YouTube, then they would be considered reliable. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 13:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• JackFromReedsburg But archiving sites are useless as they no longer show that video either (whereas for instance if you use an archive site on a Flickr image than that image will still show). Agreed Youtube can be used where nessecary but I don't see a reason as to why it should be used here but I guess we can agree to disagree on this. Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 13:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, Not a notable topic . Alex-h ( talk) 13:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Most of the article's sources violate WP:YOUTUBE and the text is of incredibly finite detail about bus wrap advertising. The other sources outside the system's website (one about a suburban crank politician mad about diversity being acknowledged and which is in the article text...hello WP:NPOV violation!), the other about a bus crash) aren't any better for the article at all. Nate • ( chatter) 21:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge back into parent article. The topic of this article feels more insignificant because it is now isolated. As previously mentioned, many Wikipedia articles for transit fleets include the bus fleet on the parent page, not in a separate article. The detail level as it is now is too intricate to be encyclopedic, but trims can be made to the article. Jacobi Jackson ( talk) 03:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• There is very little reason to keep this content, it's unencyclopdic and serves a niche audience of bus fanatics. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Milwaukee County Transit System as WP:ATD, and since it is already covered in sufficient detail there. Oppose merging as the detail in the article is WP:TOOMUCH. Jumpytoo Talk 03:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge to parent article. Riteboke ( talk) 07:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge back. There is a comment above that says the information on the fleet was forked because it was suggested for years, and it did take up a lot of space on the main article. I still feel this content should be merged back into the parent article, but it doesn't have to be as extensive as it currently is. There's a lot of intricate detail about bus wraps - that can be abridged. This content isn't notable enough to warrant its own article. A moderate inclusion on the parent article should suffice. Jacobi Jackson ( talk) 04:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete; Wikipedia is not a place for bus fleet lists, not a notable topic. If it must be merged, merge only the notable and newsworthy items, not all of it. Night fury 07:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hunting Hills High School

Hunting Hills High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV, except perhaps for one recent news report of a potential security issue. The article contains little content of note or referencing, because I don't believe there is any content of note to write about or any sources available about the school, except their own website. The few notable alumni all have their own articles. The majority of current editing is to add who the school principle is, and this appears to be the only content addition to this page over the last few years. Based on the lack of any significant coverage coverage, the school likely fails WP:N, and I believe warrants deletion. If it were not exempted as an educational institution, I would have nominated it for WP:CSD per WP:A7. Thanks, Mxtt.prior ( talk) 19:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete one source name dropping that a hockey player attended a particular schools is not enough to show that a school is notable, and that is all we really have here. That is not in any way even close to enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't know if no reliable coverage exists, but the coverage not independent. I did my best searching on Google News and Newspapers.com, and I could not find any independent sources there beyond 2-3 sentence mentions. The source provided in the nomination does not work either because it is in the same city. A lot of local coverage, and sources about people who attended exist though. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 01:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Nikhil Raut

Nikhil Raut (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The person fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. There are a lot of productions where he supposedly appeared, which are not sourced and not notable as well. The person did not appear in multiple notable films/productions in significant lead roles. Chirota ( talk) 12:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chirota ( talk) 12:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep: In the sense that he had some notable roles in some television shows. Also adding weak because I think there is only less significant coverage. Most of the Hindi sources are basically some mere mentioning. If someone comes up with some other good sources, consider my vote changed into keep or please ping me. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 13:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep per Kashmorwiki's statement, and most of the “Filmography” section is cited with reliable sources. – Cupper52 ^Discuss! 15:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Notable enough. Wasraw ( talk) 19:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Notable and meets WP:NACTOR per above, as shown by the filmography. Batmanthe8th ( talk) 15:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Tick Hall. Sandstein 09:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

From the Ashes: The Life and Times of Tick Hall

From the Ashes: The Life and Times of Tick Hall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This is an hour long TV documentary about Tick Hall, a page we don't have. The house cost $50 million and is owned by someone famous but that doesn't make the documentary notable. I can find no RS sources and there isn't anything in the article that suggests notability. The article has been tagged as advert since 2013 and I can only think the documentary is a vanity project by the owner. The article was created and mostly written by a vandalism only account that was quickly blocked. Desertarun ( talk) 18:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Move to Tick Hall (and refocus) -- I actually think there's more content about the house itself from looking around briefly; it has a fair degree of coverage in media regarding its sale, there's architectural digest spreads about the house, and then of course this documentary, which could be mentioned in said article, with this as a redirect. matt91486 ( talk) 09:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment from nom. I hadn't thought of that. I created Tick Hall, I'm OK with redirect. Desertarun ( talk) 09:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I added another reference to the Tick Hall page just to ensure that the thing we're proposing redirecting to is a stable target. matt91486 ( talk) 15:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• If this ends merge/redirect what would be merged? So little is referenced it is hard to know what to bring over? Desertarun ( talk) 18:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• I have noted the documentary and essential details in the tick hall article. I won't be adding anything else as there are no refs. Desertarun ( talk) 11:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. A technical NFOOTY pass, but nothing presented to show that the presumption of GNG that this SNG assumes is justified. Particularly relevant given that it is not even clear if this player is still active. Fenix down ( talk) 22:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Alan (footballer, born 1999)

Alan (footballer, born 1999) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Subject scraps by on WP:NFOOTY due to one appearance in the Campeonato Carioca, but has no further professional career from that point on, and has no significant coverage whatsoever. BRDude⁷⁰ ( talk) 18:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:36, 15 April 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 April 15. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep while he does only "scrape" by WP:NFOOTY, he is also only 21. He will very likely just get more fully-pro caps throughout his career. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 19:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Nehme1499. He's 21 and playing in Brazil - chances are he will play in one of the fully pro Brazilian State Leagues again before the end of his career. If, by say 25, he has yet to play another professional game of football, I think a nomination at that stage would be fair enough. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 20:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - young player, notable per NFOOTBALL, with ongoing career. We traditionally give players like this more leeway with GNG and I see no reason to depart from that. Giant Snowman 07:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Nehme1499: @ Davidlofgren1996: @ GiantSnowman: I've added this AfD because the player is not even registered at any club after the 2019 campaign. He supposedly left Goytacaz in 2019 (no sources could be found to prove that he's still at the club) and has no further senior career linked to his name. I think he's not even close to make it through WP:GNG, even though 66 minutes of Campeonato Carioca football in a match where both sides were relegated may grant him here through WP:NFOOTY... BRDude⁷⁰ ( talk) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clarifying - in which case if he has vanished for 2 years that rationale no longer stands, so instead delete as there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Nope. One appearance, 66 minutes, now playing in a non-professional league if he's playing at all (his club were relegated) according to Soccerway, nothing close to WP:GNG coverage. We can always re-create if he pops up again, but there's no reason to kick this can down the road. SportingFlyer T· C 10:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete It is really high time we started requiring multiple games to show notability just like actors and actresses need multiple appearances. We create articles on people who are already notable, not on people who may in the future become notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete If the player becomes notable in the future, fine by me. However that's a case of both WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. Until such time as we can find actual coverage of him which is not routine sports stuff (haven't found much), deletion (or maybe, just maybe, redirecting to an appropriate page [not the club's page itself, maybe a list of players or a season page] if it exists) is the route to take. Passing NFOOTY only creates a rebuttable presumption of notability, not an automatic "pass and ignore GNG". RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Sonofstar ( talk) 16:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Samanea Yangon

Samanea Yangon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable real estate development, which seems to be the penchant of this editor (two other Samanea properties in AfD, and another one soon heading that way). Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 19:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 19:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 19:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi editor, do note that I've disclose my relationship with the company, and it is alright to contribute to articles once I have disclosed the relationship i suppose? Also, my article was presented in a neutral way and citations from secondary sources were made. I am new to Wikipedia, please let me know if there is anything else I can do to not get the page deleted. Thank you for your help. Kinemas123 ( talk) 01:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. I mean, yeah, it's a random new market or something, but I've seen pages about North American malls frequently here, and this seems like the same thing, just in Myanmar. I'm conflicted, but I'm leaning towards this not being notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so yeah, weak delete. But if it stays up, it needs some work: no one cares about what streets its on or what its opening hours are. AdoTang ( talk) 19:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep According to Myanmar's No 1 newspaper The Myanmar Times, It states [sig]: The Samanea Market, one of Yangon's largest wholesale markets, The markets have been built with a planned capacity for 730 shops and will provide jobs for up to 2000 local workers., and The market represents phase 1 of Myanmar's largest trading center project, with phase 2 being implemented on a nearby 300,000 square meter plot of land. There is enough to meet WP:GNG and one of the biggest markets in Myanmar's main city Yangon....looks notable to me. Btw, due to the current situations in Myanmar, no longer Burmese language editors active on En-Wikipedia. We should be slow to delete any of it. VocalIndia ( talk) 03:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Passes WP:GNG from the significant coverage in an article from the The Myanmar Times, an article in Myanmore Magazine, and an article in Myanmar Business Today. I imagine there may be more coverage in Burmese-language sources (I think this might be one?), but these three English-language sources already provide significant coverage. — MarkH₂₁ ^talk 06:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment Barkeep49 Clearly non-consensus, relisted again again for what???? VocalIndia ( talk) 02:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Rhys Thomas (director)

Rhys Thomas (director) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Some minor coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep ^Talk 17:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I would says passes WP:FILMMAKER under WP:BIO. He has 8 Emmy nominations and one win. Other than the one directing nomination, the rest of nominations are as one of many producers. I usually wouldn't give that much weight to that but focusing on just the 4 Emmy nominations for Documentary Now! which he is one of the co-creator of I'd say he probably passes WP:CREATIVE.3 The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work & definitely passes WP:CREATIVE.4 The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention. Three seasons, and each season has been nominated for an Emmy sounds like significant critical attention. WikiVirus C ^(talk) 13:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep; his Emmy history ( nominations and win) alone is enough to push him over the notability line. TJRC ( talk) 19:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Folks that is a good bit of work you have done, identifying the actualite. I'm happy to Withdrawn nomination. scope_creep ^Talk 13:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. No clear consensus on whether the WSJ/FT sources pass WP:NCORP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Pantera Capital

Pantera Capital (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Nothing seems to have changed since this article got previously deleted. They still do not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus do not satisfy WP:NCORP. A before comes up empty and a review of the sources optimized in the article are mere announcements in unreliable sources, press releases, and self published sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: fails WP:NCORP, no sigcov foundable, presented sources are self-published or close related ones CommanderWaterford ( talk) 22:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep very prominent investment management business Devoke water 08:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• "Keep because they are prominent" is a damn weak deletion debate response. Do you have any reason for saying they are prominent? - Bri.public ( talk) 22:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Agree with user:Devokewater, this is major venture capital firm specializing in crypto currency investments. There is enough coverage to justify a keep. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 02:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 19:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Clearly delete. Only four of the article's refs are independant and (arguably) reliable: [21] [22] [23] [24]. None of these sources discuss Pantera in depth, just mention it in passing, per the classic language "the funding round included A, B, C, D and Pantera". The rest of the sources are either self-published, sketchy [25] [26], or Coindesk ( WP:RSP reminder: There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources.). If Expertwikiguy and Devokewater think that the firm is prominent or major, they should provide substantial coverage by independant and reliable sources. JBchrch ( talk) 16:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Ok I am moving to Keep, as Expertwikiguy and Devokewater have admirably lived up to their burden of proof and shown that there is significant coverage of this company in the FT and the WSJ. I will come back to the article at some point in the next week or two and, if still necessary, replace the current crappy sources by these good sources (and change the content accordingly). -- JBchrch ( talk) 09:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment They just got written up on Motley Fool, arguably a top 5 Financial publication. CEO also appear in an interview on Fool and mention of company in NASDAQ.com. techcrunch and Venturebeat are credible publication also they just got mentioned here. I have updated the article. Also a Google search brings up over 10 pages of results and more articles on them. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 19:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Expertwikiguy:

• According a WP:RSN thread that I started back in February there is no clear consensus on the reliability of The Motley Fool. Also I am pretty sure that it's not a top 5 financial publication (see FT, WSJ, Bloomberg, The Economist, Forbes, HBR, Barrons, Businessweek, Marketwatch etc.).
• The NASDAQ link is a reprint of the first Motley Fool interview you linked. So, in total, we have two interviews, both published by the same source, and on the same day (April 6). That is not significant coverage. Besides, the fact that the Motley Fool made two articles out of the same interview on the same day just goes to show how seriously they work...
• Cointelegraph is not a reliable source according to the most recent WP:RSN thread on the subject [27]. So the policy regarding Coindesk applies here as well. JBchrch ( talk) 22:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Regarding Motley Fool, what I really meant to say that it's a Top 5 Stock Market specialized publication, the other ones you named like Forbes and Economist are more general financial publications. Regardless, with massive amount of coverage that this company has in Google news it passes WP:GNG. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 23:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• I am aware of Coindesk being not reliable as its on this list here. But I don't see Coin Telegraph on it or on the link that you sent. Although I personally have seen very good articles on CoinDesk and feel it should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but we are not discussing CoinDesk now. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 23:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Also I am not sure if having a profile on Bloomberg counts for anything, but they have this. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 23:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Digging a bit more on this and found this Wall Street Journal article that appears in-depth and this one. I dont have paid membership so I cant read the whole thing. My argument with anyone having an article in WSJ is that it's the #1 financial publication, so if they cover you then you meet WP:GNG.

• Comment Due to newly discovered WSJ WSJ 1 WSJ 2 and Motley Fool articles I would like to invoke WP:HEYMANN.I have improved article with new sources. I am requesting nominator Celestina007 to review his nomination based on these new sources and Delete voters ( CommanderWaterford ) to revisit again. also pinging JBchrch and RandomCanadian. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 01:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment there are a couple of articles in the Financial Times, ^[1] this hedge fund set up by ex Tiger Management alumni Devoke water 08:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete The Motley references fail WP:ORGIND as it is an interview with a company cofounder and is not independent, failing WP:SIRS. The newly discovered WSJ WSJ 1 ref is an announcement of formation and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the references in this article are simply junk and explicitly fail WP:NCORP at one level or another. scope_creep ^Talk 10:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG, especially with reliable sources indicated by Expertwikiguy and Devokewater. I believe there is no WP:COI involved in improving the article. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - with any financial firm, especially those related to cryptocurrency, there are an abundance of blogs and semi-organized news sites that can generate a lot of Google results, giving the appearance of notability. But we need reliable sources independent of the subject with non-trivial coverage, and I'm not seeing that. Ganesha811 ( talk) 14:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep The WallStreetJournal and FT cites are enough to pass WP:GNG. Plus, it looks like there are lots of other RS's (just with a quick glace, TechCrunch and some legitimate books). <ref>{{cite web |title="Pantera Capital" -wikipedia - Google Search |url=https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Pantera+Capital%22+-wikipedia |website=www.google.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title="Pantera Capital" -wikipedia - Google Search |url=https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Pantera+Capital%22+-wikipedia |website=www.google.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Google Scholar |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Pantera+Capital%22 |website=scholar.google.com}}</ref> The article just needs to be developed further. Hocus00 ( talk) 17:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per the WSJ and FT citations; I've copyedited the page to remove some things that were questionable (like claims about its position in the field being cited to the company's About page, lol). jp× g 17:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Motley Fool is an unreliable source and is being flagged up by the script. I have removed unreliable trash sources, WP:SPS sources and other junk. Let's look at each reference in turn.

What are NFT. Doesn't establish notability.

[28] Fails WP:SIRS, it is not independent.

Cryptocurrency hedge funds see returns plunge in volatile times This is a routine announcement.

Crypto Startup Investor Pantera Capital Raises Hedge Fund This is routine announcement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Crypto hedge fund Pantera Capital files for massive $134 million raise. This is a dependent source, it is an interview. fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND.

@ Hocus00: Putting in a selection of raw search results is not the way to do it. You find stuff on everybody, but the closing admin usually ignores it. It is the quality of the sources, not the quantity. And linking to Google Scholar in this case is useless. It is not an academic article nor an academic. Unless the cited article has more than 100 citations and there is more than 10 of them, then they are not really valid. scope_creep ^Talk 18:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply