WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2021 MARCH 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 02	March 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Madison County Corridors

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

No significant coverage, the only source included is a feasibility study (primary source), and from what I can tell this hasn't gone anywhere in the past few years. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 23:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 23:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 23:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: does not meet GNG and since its just a study, NGEO doesn't apply. // Timothy :: talk 20:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Sandra Bowen (thinktank director)

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

Appears to be primarily a promotional article. Very few sources are available online. I could find no immediate hits on news searches. The article was mainly written by compensated and disclosed editors. Sauzer ( talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sauzer ( talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sauzer ( talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sauzer ( talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Sauzer ( talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

You're correct. I told her what she needed to do for it to not get flagged for deletion, but she refused to provide me with anything that fit under WP:RS, and eventually canned me because I was telling her what she hired me to tell her but didn't want to hear and accused me of being a pariah to Wikipedia admins.-- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 03:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete we need to put the kabbosh on people paying their way to Wikipedia inclusion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete The converge are not from any notable media, hence it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also can't find much in Google news. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 10:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The Times article is not about her primarily. The other sources are not secondary, or are not independent. Bearian ( talk) 15:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Perhaps further discussion about the general notability/criteria for these sorts of bibliographies is warranted, but insofar as current policy permits them, there appears to be consensus that this one is okay to retain. No prejudice against this conversation continuing elsewhere. Go Phightins ! 23:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Bibliography of Gibraltar

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

Currently on hiatus from AfD, but got a few of those 'deprod per WP:DEPROD' summaries in my watchlist. Article is a borderline case at absolute best for WP:LISTN/ WP:LISTPURP, presenting a heterogeneous list of books on a broad topic with little indication of use to readers. It has classic WP:SYNTH issues built into the process and which can't be avoided or edited out of. (Page creator has chosen not to be notified for AfDs.) Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 23:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep The talk of WP:SYNTH is nonsense. The territory of Gibraltar is well-defined and rich in history and so there are numerous books and documents about it. It is easy to find multiple published bibliographies for this place and this book has pages of them including A Gibraltar Bibliography; An introduction to the documents relating to the international status of Gibraltar, 1704 - 1934; A bibliography of Gibraltar 1939-1945; Gibraltar: bibliography - local and military history up to 28 February 1978; &c. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN easily while the purpose of the list is obvious and respectable. Andrew🐉( talk) 23:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Existence of specialized bibliographies with specific themes (and certainly annotations as well!) is no basis for this bibliography that's just random titles of books on the broader topic. Wikipedia is not just a list of titles of unrelated publications on history, travel, and "Military Anecdotes" on a wide topic with no inclusion criteria. Unclear what makes this an encyclopedic compilation any more than typing "Gibraltar" into your library's catalogue or Google Books, or what the title of a handbook to visiting Spain being next to the title of a book on fortifications is supposed to provide readers. History_of_Gibraltar#References provides just as useful of a list of books on the territory. Reywas92^Talk 01:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
- Noting similarities, I found this page is just a copy-and-paste of that references section when the page was created in 2013: [1]. What the hell is the point of this???? Speedy delete as not a freaking article, just pointless duplication. Reywas92^Talk 01:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  - We have similar bibliographies for most parts of the world – see Category:Bibliographies of countries or regions. There's no good reason to omit this one, especially as it is so clearly notable. Andrew🐉( talk) 01:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    - WP:OSE, many of those articles pages were created by the same person and are likewise useless. There's no reason to keep this when when it's so clearly arbitrary and of no use and a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE. Reywas92^Talk 02:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
      - I noted this in response to your similar comment in the other pending bibliography AFD, but just so it's here in this discussion as well: OSE states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." postdlf ( talk) 15:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Our bibliography articles are often the labor of love for one person or otherwise completely neglected. Still, they are considered a valid form of list (although there's a good question of whether they belong in projectspace or mainspace). There is a good point about scope here, though. What is the inclusion criteria? What sort of inclusion criteria would be reasonable? Is it even realistic? My initial reaction is that we should Keep and Split as/when needed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep largely per Rhododendrites. Maybe these should be in project space, I'm indifferent. But Gibraltar is unquestionably a valid topic for one so long as we do this, and all else is a matter for further development and discussion. postdlf ( talk) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
- Hi, why should this be a separate page that is a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE of History_of_Gibraltar#References that already lists these books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 ( talk • contribs)
  - Because the potential scope of this page is obviously broader than just what is presently used as a reference in that Wikipedia article. postdlf ( talk) 15:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep - as opposed to Bibliography of South America. A single region/location, especially a small one, is a restrictive enough topic to have a sensible bibliography attached to it. Doing that for a continent is ludicrous, but here the scope is doable, and we are otherwise quite willing to entertain really large bibliographies. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
- Hi, why should this be a separate page that is a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE of History_of_Gibraltar#References that already lists these books? Reywas92^Talk 01:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

That does not strike me as a sensible argument. Even if the two lists overlap or are largely identical at this point, the references at Gibraltar are determined by whatever is used as sources for material in that article, and can't contain anything further. That's not a restriction we have in standalone bibliographies. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Soooooo how about a WP:Further reading section? Keeping a duplicate copied-and-pasted page is not a sensible argument. Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

The most obvious counter would be that "Further reading" sections are supposed to be a small adjunct to an article, and can/should never have the size of a dedicated bibliography page. It appears to me that your arguments are really aimed at the merit of standalone bibliographies as an article type, rather than this specific one. Maybe it's worth having a dedicated discussion on that? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

keep: The article definitely needs to be improved and expanded, but it is a notable topic for a bibliography. // Timothy :: talk 20:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Pais arepa 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Theodore Cohen (chemist)

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. With the exception of obituaries, there is no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Pais arepa 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pais arepa 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pais arepa 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pais arepa 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator. Consensus is obvious and there is no ongoing discussion that would be cut off. Pais arepa 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep There may only be obits here, yet there are three independent obits. One states Cohen, who was a chemistry professor at Pitt for 60 years, died Dec. 13, at 88 years old. During his time at Pitt, he authored more than 200 research papers, and graduates of his lab can be found teaching at colleges and universities around the world. which signifies notability. All a subject of an article has to be is notable. This gentleman vaults that threshold with room to spare. What the article needs is more substance and references for that substance. But AfD is not a mechanism of choice for article improvement Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
- Comment Rather than just saying that the individual 'vaults the [notability] threshold', could you specifically explain how he meets WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, or any other SNG? Pais arepa 23:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  - Comment I put a section in italics in my !vote. That section itself vaults the threshold. That will have to do for specifics. Fiddle Faddle 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. I am getting a GS h-index of 30 plus, which passes WP:Prof#C1. The BIO is terse and needs expansion. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC). reply
- Comment One flaw of the h-index is that it does a poor job distinguishing between a relatively mediocre academic who published for a long period of time and a notable academic who published for a shorter duration. Cohen's h-index is inflated by the fact that he published for ~60 years, an unusually long career. Pais arepa 00:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep A respectable and respected professor of chemistry. Not seeing the problem. Andrew🐉( talk) 00:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. I looked at the citation metrics of all 63 of his coauthors with 10 or more publications, and all 30 authors (10+ pubs) of the 10 most recent articles citing him. Total citations: average: 4721, median: 1107, Cohen: 5754. Total papers: avg: 124, med: 59, C: 185. h-index: avg: 26, med: 18, C: 42. Highest citation: avg: 359, med: 143, C: 259. Clearly well above even the average in his field in most of these parameters. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
- Comment Almost all of the metrics you list are cumulative, which means that his being above average in the metrics you list is purely an artifact of the fact that he published for an unusually long period of time. WP:PROF is clear that Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1; Cohen needs something more than a long career and the correspondingly large number of publications to meet WP:PROF. Pais arepa 02:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Please distinguish between publications and citations. What he has got is a decent number of citations on GS. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC). reply

Yes, Cohen has an above average number of total citations (22% higher by JoelleJay's measure) compared to the average academic in his field, but the cause of this is simply that he published for a significantly longer period than the average academic in his field. Consider, for example, another professor who is exactly alike to Cohen in that they match his average of ~3 papers published per year and ~31 citations per paper, but this hypothetical professor publishes for a more typical 40 years compared to Cohen's 60. This hypothetical professor would have published 120 papers and have 3720 citations, and by both metrics would be below average. They would also have a lower h-index due to their shorter publishing career even if their number of citations per paper follows the same distribution as that of Cohen. Cohen is above average with regards to these metrics only because the metrics are dependent on and highly correlated with career duration. Without applying some common-sense normalization to these metrics you're largely just measuring publishing volume and career longevity, neither of which are measures of notability. Pais arepa 04:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Irrelevant. WP:Prof measures cumulative achievement. Obviously a person will have more achievements at the end of their career than at the start. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC). reply

I agree, an impactful achievement could be a single discovery of somebody that never does anything again or somebody who consistently contributes to a field over time. Of course the Great man theory of science opts for the former but in practice science is done more often in small but important steps. On top of that, I count 6 papers with citation count > 100, you usually dont achieve that by simply writing a lot of small irrelevant papers over a long period of time. -- hroest 14:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. Clearly relevant, see multiple different obituaries. An academic who had graduate students become PIs at other Universities has clearly had a strong impact on the field. More information can be found for example in the award justification for the Pittsburg award: https://www.chem.pitt.edu/news-story/professor-ted-cohen-2009-winner-acs-pittsburgh-section-award "His graduate significant contributions on the chemistry of pyridines and pyridine-N-oxides ... Pioneering work, on organocopper chemistry in 60's and 70's, organolithium and sulfur chemistry in the 80's and 90's, has been and still is the signature of Ted's voluminous work in the lab. His major contributions embrace mechanisms, synthetic methodology and natural product synthesis." The main issue with the article is that it needs improvement and addition of noteable facts. -- hroest
Keep JoelleJay's argument that he passes WP:PROF#C1 sounds solid to me. (Whether the numbers are "cumulative" is beside the point; one way to be an influential scientist is to keep doing research that people keep caring about, and if it works, it works. Some of us have long careers and stay obscure through to the bitter end.) The article can be expanded with details from the obituaries, like how he waited tables at a summer resort while he was an undergraduate, and Isaac Asimov encouraged him to go into chemistry. XOR'easter ( talk) 06:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. I see several quite highly cited papers, in what I understand to be a medium citation field. I think it's a pass of WP:NPROF C1. Sure, he's well-known partly because of the length of his career (but you could say the same for Johnny Carson). Pitt held a small event for him on the occasion of his retirement, and there's a little more about him in coverage of the event in the chemistry department newsletter [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russ Woodroofe ( talk • contribs) 08:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep As per all above, have enough notability. Hulatam ( talk) 15:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. I agree. -- Bduke ( talk) 21:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. There may be enough here for WP:PROF#C1. The in-depth analysis above looks at average citations per paper, but I think that's a mistake; we want to determine whether he made at least a small number of significant contributions, and averaging over all papers doesn't pick out the significant ones. The sources claiming that his phenol syntheses were included in textbooks, and that he was known for his work on organosulfur and organometals, look more relevant for this than trying to understand how citation numbers in this field might have varied over time in order to calibrate the numbers. Regardless, I think we also have enough here for WP:GNG. The sources affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh can be considered reliable but are non-independent; however, the Chemical & Engineering News and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette obituaries look independent enough (in particular, the one in the Post-Gazette appears to be an article written by them, rather than a paid death notice from a family member). — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

(Pinging Paisarepa as well) I agree it's more important to weigh the qualitative contributions to the field when that's an option/the info is available. I do want to note that the metrics I use don't include average citation per paper but rather total citations and highest citation. I looked at all of Dr. Cohen's coauthors in an effort to account for longevity and differences in citation standards over time, and then looked at the authors of the 10 most recent articles citing him for comparisons with contemporary researchers. Looking at just his coauthors: total cites: avg: 6010, med: 1130, C: 5754; total pubs: avg: 130, med: 41, C: 185; h-index: avg: 29, med: 19, C: 42; highest citation: avg: 447, med: 162, C: 259. Note that these numbers skew the averages (not so much the medians) upward a lot due to a handful of old heavy-hitters like Houk of Houk's model and John Falck of aziridine and hydrastine synthesis fame. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep Seems to meet WP:NPROF and has some additional independant sourcing. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 14:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment. The nominator may like to withdraw to avoid further waste of editors' time. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC), reply
- Comment Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'm aware that there is a clear consensus but do not intend to withdraw the nomination until I'm confident there isn't a valuable discussion that may be short-circuted by doing so. As a reminder, there is no obligation to participate if you feel doing so is a waste of your time. Pais arepa 22:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  - Note for the record, that the nominator first proposed uncontroversial deletion without discussion. Now they want lots of discussion but it's not clear what their point is. Meanwhile, I'm getting the article reviewed to appear on the main page as a DYK. Andrew🐉( talk) 23:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
SNOW close... gone on long enough already. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 16:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Gibraltar#Cultural references. Daniel ( talk) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Gibraltar in popular culture

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

Currently on hiatus from AfD, but got a few of those 'deprod per WP:DEPROD' summaries in my watchlist. This is a synthesis of "minor mentions in notable works" and "non-notable works with more than passing references", and if it were trimmed down to major appearances in anything significant, it would be a permastub at best. The collection of examples here is not natural, sensical, or in line with WP:LISTN/ WP:LISTPURP. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 23:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep/merge These things are usually spinoffs from the main topic and so the worst case would be merger to Gibraltar#Cultural_references which is currently meagre. It is easy to find general sources about the topic such as Gibraltar – 'an emblem of waste and loneliness' and Writing the Rock of Gibraltar. And there was the huge amount of fuss about the TV show, Death on the Rock. Andrew🐉( talk) 00:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep or merge to parent topic, of which it is an obvious subtopic. postdlf ( talk) 01:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge reliably sourced entries to Gibraltar#Cultural references. The article cannot stand on its own but those entries that are sourced can be mentioned in the parent article. WP:TRIVIA should be avoided. IceWelder [ ✉] 09:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep Perfectly valid spinoff article. Won't all fit nicely in the main article, so valid content is spinout to a side article. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/almanac-gibraltar/ Gibraltar looms large in our popular culture as well. Dream Focus 12:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete or merge. WP:NOTDIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acousmana ( talk • contribs)
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. postdlf ( talk) 16:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  - someone's pet WP:OR project, was this commissioned by the Gibraltar Tourist Board or something? are we going to create one of these for every country next? It's absurd. Acousmana ( talk) 22:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

"Was this commissioned by the Gibraltar Tourist Board or something?" Funny you say that... Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 13:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Vaticidalprophet: ha, OK, thanks! I did not know this, interesting. Acousmana ( talk) 16:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Merge to Gibraltar#Cultural references, right now it is an example farm and crufty spinoff._{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge to Gibraltar#Cultural references as per all above. Cuoxo ( talk) 18:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge as a stand-alone article this suffers from XKCD 446 [3] syndrome. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge per power~enwiki. Archrogue ( talk) 18:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge selectivey as suggested. Bearian ( talk) 15:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep or Merge: Article needs to be expanded beyond a list, but the subject is notable. I don't think it meets LISTN, so if someone wishes to merge sourced content into an appropriate target I have no objection. If someone ever decides to recreate this as an article instead of a list, the material can be recovered from the history. // Timothy :: talk 20:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

List of windmills in Guernsey

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

Currently on hiatus from AfD, but got a few of those 'deprod per WP:DEPROD' summaries in my watchlist. List fails WP:LISTPURP/ WP:LISTN; it's a collection of generic ( WP:MILL, if you want to make a terrible pun) windmills on a minor island. There is little informational (the limits of Wikipedia require this list be more sparse in both scope and description than it would be on a specialized website, and so make nobody happy) or navigational (none of the windmills have or could have articles) value. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep I really disagree with this nom. I think WP:LISTN is met, since the windmills have been occasionally discussed as a set, and none of them may necessarily be notable enough for their own page (see WP:CSC) and the information is, er, informational. Just because a specialist website might contain more information is not a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T· C 23:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep Being on hiatus from AfD does not grant immunity to PRODs which are supposed to be uncontroversial. The page is reasonably well-sourced and the topic seems quite reasonable and respectable. As for WP:MILL, it's an essay and so has "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". See also the Mills of God. Andrew🐉( talk) 00:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I would note it is eminently counterproductive to your goals to inspire an inclusionist to come back to AfD with the goal of deleting articles. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 02:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep As per SportingFlyer WP:LISTN is satisfied. Hulatam ( talk) 15:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - It's a sub-list of the List of windmills, per WP:LSC. Of the mills in the Bailiwick of Guernsey, Vale Mill and Sark Windmill may just be notable enough to sustain articles, but it would be hard work getting either above start class. The subject is notable enough to sustain a list, per WP:LISTN. Mjroots ( talk) 17:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep A well sourced and valuable resource. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 15:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep: As a list this doesn't meet LISTN in its current state, but given the subject and the number of books written about windmills, and the sources in the article, I think this could be expanded beyond a simple list. Since these are historical structures, there are probably a number of notable articles which means this could be the SUMMARY article for the subject and the list would meet CLN. // Timothy :: talk 20:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Namethatisnotinuse ( talk) 14:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

ThinkFree Office

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

This article is a complete train wreck. Bad grammar, feels like a kid wrote it. We should just delete instead of fixing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namethatisnotinuse ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 3. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep AfD is not cleanup. The article is a stub so fixing its grammar mistakes is not a tedious task. A search of Google books reveals the product has been featured many times in PC Magazine and Macworld. There's a hit on JSTOR and there's this review article as well. Meets WP:GNG. Mottezen ( talk) 19:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by User:GB fan as WP:A9. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

7 Of Hearts

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

Album by rapper who does not have an article. Neither the album nor the rapper have any visible coverage outside of self-uploaded streaming and social media sites. This album has no independent or reliable coverage as required at WP:NALBUM. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 22:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 22:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - zero notability, a total and complete failure of WP:NALBUM. In addition to the complete lack of coverage, he has 12 followers on SoundCloud and none of his songs even have 1000 plays on Spotify or more than 15 views on YouTube. This is probably even worthy of the rarely used WP:A9. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment - I've also noticed that the article says that this is the artist's 2nd debut studio album. What!? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete – I wish the artist the best of luck with his career but this is a silly inclusion on Wikipedia. Carbrera ( talk) 00:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC). reply
Speedy Delete A9, per Spiderone and nom. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per A9 and the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Non notable failing WP:NMG . --Gpkp u • t • c 07:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Hulatam ( talk) 15:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Kelvedon Hatch F.C.

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

Was previously deleted via PROD with the rationale Fails to meet generally accepted notability criteria for clubs, i.e. playing at Step 6 or above, or having played in the FA Cup/Vase. This concern remains valid.

I also think that this fails WP:GNG. In recent times, it gets name checks in local papers, for example in this article. Searching through British newspaper archives gives nothing significant unless you count the odd mention in results listings in the Chelmsford Chronicle as such. A book called Kelvedon Hatch, 1840 – 1920: A Guided Tour seems to make a reference to such a club; "The first mention of an official Kelvedon Hatch football team is from 1918, although it is believed there was a team before then." That's about all I could really find. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Being from Essex, anything below Essex Senior League is not notable. Village team. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 21:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - well below the standard we should cover. Local interest only. Nigej ( talk) 22:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Do not Delete I must register my huge disappointment in this being voted for deletion. This club is directly referenced on the Essex Olympian Football League page, and as you can see, various other clubs have their own pages on there (including ones in lower divisions of the league). I have created this page because it is of interest to the people of Essex, and the people of Kelvedon Hatch. The club has achieved considerable success over the years, winning a variety of tournaments and leagues and I for one believe that it deserves its own page. To even fight for my page that is not going against or harming anyone is absurd, and I have put so much effort into this page so its quite down putting to see you all want to take it down. Luke780 ( talk) 22:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Those other clubs meet WP:FOOTYN because they have either played at step 6 or above or played in the FA Vase, FA Cup or other national cup. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG. @ Luke780:, we require reliable secondary sources to write encyclopaedia articles, this article is sourced only to the club's website and the league website, which don't count towards notability since they're effectively self-published. If you can find newspaper articles which cover the club significantly (we haven't found any yet), you can use those to show the club's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T· C 22:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda ( talk) 23:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Have found an article, if no good then Delete The only newspaper article I could find of any significance was this one, featured in the Romford Recorder. If it is indeed no good then it pains me to say but I can see that you are all correct and the page should indeed be marked for deletion. Sorry to be a nuisance everyone, it was a simple mistake on my part if so. I hope you all have a great day Luke780 ( talk) 01:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

This is better coverage than anything that I managed to find but it still falls into WP:ROUTINE coverage, in my view. It's a local paper doing a build-up piece for the local cup with a comment from Hatch's manager. On its own, it doesn't do enough to establish the importance or significance of this club. In other words, it couldn't really be used to flesh out an encyclopaedia article in any significant way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete as below the generally agreed threshold for club notability. Number 5 7 12:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - As noted by others, the club does not seem to have the notability/level of coverage that would be required for it to have its own article. I would note that the Kelvedon Hatch article does not currently mention the club, so perhaps a brief mention of it there instead would be in order. Dunarc ( talk) 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Self-withdrawing, as all the promotional puffery has been removed, and the article is notable by consensus below. (non-admin closure) Steve M ( talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Mandy Haberman

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

Does not appear to be notable. Only links are to the official site and LinkedIn-like profiles, which are not notable enough. Next, a Google search did not give me any good, reliable sources. Meanwhile, the article is very promotional in it's current state and may benefit from WP:TNT regardless if the subject is barely notable. Steve M ( talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Steve M ( talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Steve M ( talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Steve M ( talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Weak keep The article has been the subject of some promotional editing lately, but the earlier version (as of 20 March 2020) is better, with links to sites verifying her status as a visiting Fellow at Bournemouth University and a recipient of the British Female Inventor and Innovative Network (BFIIN) Female Inventor of the Year 2000. (This is a weak keep, because I'm not aware of the significance of the BFIIN award, or the "visiting Fellow" status. I've reverted to that earlier version of the page (keeping the AFD notice intact, of course.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep, multiple WP:RS available in The Telegraph, FT, and The Guardian. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 22:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep as above, also plenty of coverage in The Times (viewable in Wikipedia Library/ProQuest) Piecesofuk ( talk) 16:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep as above, Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 16:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep Current sources passes WP:GNG. Cuoxo ( talk) 18:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Polycrates complex

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

This is not a notable concept; it's barely even a verifiable concept. This is a peripheral, almost passing idea from one psychoanalytic book from 1945, and its existence elsewhere is passing mentions in some following literature (direct quote: "[the term] Polycrates complex hardly deserves a column") and people directly ripping Wikipedia articles (e.g. mirrors and those interminable pronunciation videos). Prodded and deprodded, with little in the way of rationale for the latter. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep/merge It has an entry by this title in the Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis (1968). The worst case would be merger to some similar concept such as Jonah complex. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The most passing familiarity with psychology belies that those aren't coherent concepts to merge. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 11:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete One guy's coinage, mentioned passingly in the decades since and, as the nominator noted, sometimes with derision then. (The "hardly deserves a column" dig is actually from a review of the Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis mentioned in the previous !vote [4].) The claim about its use in criminology has been unsourced since the article was created in 2005.) XOR'easter ( talk) 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep or Merge somewhere. This is a definition of a term that has been used. We have got one reference (from 1945). It may belong to an aspect of psychology that is no longer in vogue, which is probably why there is nothing more recent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

It's a definition, and that's all it is, per WP:NOTDICT. We can verify that it was an idea someone had once; there's no evidence anyone much cared. There are plenty of notable concepts from early psychology, including routes people don't really go down anymore, but this isn't one of them. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 18:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

That sounds about right. The number of terms coined by academics every year is large, while the fraction of them that gain any nontrivial traction is small. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A valid target for a merger has not really emerged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 00:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and XOR'easter. Not a notable concept. Lennart97 ( talk) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: Agree with XOR'easter, non-notable concept, no sources showing notability for GNG. Nothing shows up in a journal search. Merging would require properly sourced content, and the source does not support the text. I couldn't find any appropriate redirect target, but if someone finds one and it make sense the closer should consider it. But unsourced content should not be merged into other articles. // Timothy :: talk 10:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:OR. It's sourced to a single primary source, and thus is original research. Bearian ( talk) 15:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Happy to userfy in case anyone wants to try to incorporate anything elsewhere, but there's a consensus that the film does not meet our notability guideline. No prejudice against a redirect if warranted. Go Phightins ! 23:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Punnaram

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. PROD was removed because there is a mentioning of the movie in the director's obituary. I am not sure how that is related to the movie itself. Kolma8 ( talk) 12:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 ( talk) 12:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 ( talk) 12:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. A mere mention in an obituary is not enough to establish notability. Donaldd23 ( talk) 12:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Weak keep: Agree with the opinion that there is not enough sources to establish notability. But since this is a movie, its practically not possible for some movies to find sources. So sources like this can be considered to establish notability [5]. Also additional inclusionary criteria also says that The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. This was one of the notable movies of the director mentioned in the source. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Kashmorwiki, the sheer fact that there is no available sources supports (or should support) this deletion nomination. It is arrant balderdash to keep an article which fails all the criteria of WP:NFILM and WP:GNG and for which we all agree that there is no sources to support notability. Even many movies from the 1920s, 1950s (to include movies from India) have sources to support their notability and impact on the movie history. Kolma8 ( talk) 20:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Kolma8, please note my comment.This is the reason why I said weak keep. I know there are not enough sources. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 03:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: Three of the four sources in the article are database listings with no SIGCOV and the obit is a mention. Notability is not inherited from participants in the film. I couldn't find much of anything other than promos and listings and there are not even many promos. No objection to a redirect to Sasi Shanker, but I do not see sourced content for a merge. // Timothy :: talk 21:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Overseas teams in the Round of 64 of the Coupe de France since 2015

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

I'm probably missing something here but I'm struggling to see the significance of this list. Is there something special or exclusive about overseas teams competing in the round of 64 in this competition since 2015? I can't see how WP:LISTN or WP:GNG are met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Spiderone Keep, but i admit that the page needs of improvements. Can we move the page in the draftspace? Dr Salvus ( talk) 20:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

We can do if there is consensus for that in this discussion. Generally, though, there would need to be potential for the topic to be encyclopaedic and notable. Are there multiple reliable sources reporting about overseas teams in the round of 64 since 2015? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Overseas France is France. Unclear why these teams are singled out any differently from teams from Paris or teams from Corsica since there are no sources specifically about the performance of Overseas teams. Respective articles like 2018–19 French Cup show the regions all the teams are from and their performances. Reywas92^Talk 21:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Reywas92: Overseas, as a direct translation of the French Outre-mer does have a specific meaning in France, being shorthand for the collectivity of overseas departments and territories (DOMTOM or départements d'outre-mer et territoires d'outre-mer). In football and Coupe de France terms, I've always referred to these as Overseas departments and territories, because to the casual reader overseas can be confusing - and even could be taken out of context to include Corsica which isn't a contiguous part of mainland france, but is counted as such in organisational terms. The situation on wiki is confused even more by our article on French overseas departments and territories residing since 2017 at Overseas France. Cheers, Gricehead ( talk) 08:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - list serves no purpose. Giant Snowman 21:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete completely arbitrary criteria. Nigej ( talk) 22:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - This list serves no purpose when their is the Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France page which is basically the exact copy just with more details from the earlier years. HawkAussie ( talk) 05:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

HawkAussie There are differences. This article describes the journey of the overseas teams even in the preliminary rounds. This page has different purposes than the other one you mentioned. Dr Salvus ( talk) 06:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - list is just abstraction of data from the existing preliminary round articles, and seems to have an arbitrary cutoff of when the detailed coverage of preliminary rounds started on-wiki. Progress of the of overseas teams through their own self-contained competition could be linked from within the other article Overseas teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France, to render this list completely unnecessary, if that gap explicitly needs to be covered. Gricehead ( talk) 08:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete It's a long title header, I can understand and see what the creator is trying to do, but I don't see this needed really. There are other ways the reader can learn this. Govvy ( talk) 09:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete As I mentioned at the WT:FOOTY discussion, don't see a need for this separate article for performances from 2015 onwards. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete serves no purpose -- Devoke water 15:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:OR: sourcing a page to a single source is not an article, it's original research bordering on a copyright violation. We have never published original research. Bearian ( talk) 15:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete I fail to see how it could be both original research and a copyright violation. Nonetheless, it should be deleted as an arbitrary list. Smartyllama ( talk) 18:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Mortician (band). Daniel ( talk) 23:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

The Final Bloodbath Session

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

Unnotable album. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete or Redirect to Mortician (band). Article does not pass WP:GNG. HĐ ( talk) 07:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

A live album by the band Mortician. While they are awesome, I think this album of theirs is not notable. The article was created by a now blocked user back in 2015. Tagged for notability since that same year. Sourced solely to a blank Allmusic page (track listing + user reviews). Couldn't find any decent sources, only the usual junk, like youtube, retail sites, databases, blogs, download links and lyrics sites. No evidence of notability other than the fact that the band is notable. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:OR. For the third time today, this is original research of it's sourced to a single website. Bearian ( talk) 16:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Mortician (band). Article does not pass GNG or NALBUM. // Timothy :: talk 21:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Thuringian forest donkey

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

No source cited. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - there are sources describing this breed - 1 2 3. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 20:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - 3 reliable sources provided above seem good enough for me Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep Recognized breed, sources are readily available (but obviously should have been added to the article ab initio...). Added two good ones to the article that seem to cover most of the material. Inline refs would be desirable though. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep as per WP:HEY, now it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep As per all above and WP:HEY. Cuoxo ( talk) 19:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Weak keep. I've added some sources and a little sourced content to the page (a good deal of it is duplicated, so it isn't as much as it might seem, and that's not much). This is recognised and reported to DAD-IS as a breed, so I suppose we have to accept that it is one; on the other hand, it's a tiny group of about twenty donkeys with nothing much to distinguish them from any other donkeys, and of minimal notability or encyclopaedic interest. I usually argue that any breed with official national recognition deserves an independent article, so I suppose that this does too. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Justlettersandnumbers: good call on the "Canadian Journal of Applied Sciences" - looks like it's an IDOSI journal [6], with the attendant lack of strict peer review and dodgy credentials; didn't notice when I added that. Still, recognized breed and such. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 23:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Alexandra Lapierre

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

No sources cited. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep per WP:HEY, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR due to the rapid improvements and additions of reviews and in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources to this article, including Kirkus Reviews, the San Francisco Chronicle, The New York Times, 2, 3, and the Washington Post Beccaynr ( talk) 21:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep Yes the creator had asked for a little time as they were not able to move the title of the article (I had earlier CSD'd this - see my talk page) the article has been improved and passes NAUTHOR in my opinion JW 1961 Talk 21:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep - article has been vastly improved and notability is clearly demonstrated Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep - She is notable, her works have drawn significant critical attention: review published in Art in America, The Guardian, The New York Times, Elle magazine, Le Point, a French magazine, review in another French newspaper, Le Monde, published in French financial newspaper, Les Echos, article published in Vol. 50 of Nineteenth-Century Literature, discusses her work, another article published in Vol. 23 of Women's Art Journal, talks about her work, and there are several other sources. -- Ashley yoursmile! 07:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep as above, Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 16:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian ( talk) 16:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Rider University. ( WP:ATD) Daniel ( talk) 23:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

The Shadow Yearbook

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

Article is unreferenced and hasn't been meaningfully updated in years. It's highly unusual to have a separate page for a college yearbook ( Category:Yearbooks has 44 entries, but at most 10 of them are for college yearbooks, and most of those are likely non-notable). A WP:BEFORE search found nothing useful (even a Newspapers.com search found only results for an unrelated high school yearbook). {{u| Sdkb}} ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. {{u| Sdkb}} ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. {{u| Sdkb}} ^talk 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Notified: Talk:Rider University. {{u| Sdkb}} ^talk 19:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete year books are almost never indepdently notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Rider University: Article is unsourced OR, I couldn't find any sources for the content, nothing meets SIGCOV with direct and indepth coverage to meet GNG or NBOOK. If someone finds sources for an article, this information could be recovered from the redirect. // Timothy :: talk 21:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Wah Bhudi

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

Non-notable film. References are only videos and Google brings nothing except database listing. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 ( talk) 17:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete: Sources in the article are a youtube video of the film, a link about online poker, and a 404 page. So the article is unsourced OR. I couldn't find anything with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, I don't think there is a good redirect target, but if someone feels strongly about a redirect, no objection, but there is no content for a merge and OR should not be merged. // Timothy :: talk 21:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Universal Indicator (collective)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)} 23:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Universal Indicator Red

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

Nomination includes:

Both albums fail WP:NMUSIC (and have been tagged as such since 2016). There is no significant coverage to be found other than an AllMusic review of Red (Yellow has a rating but no review), which is not sufficient. There are no charts, certification, rewards or anything else to suggest notability. I suggest to redirect to Universal Indicator (collective)#Discography (this nomination is the result of a contested redirection). Lennart97 ( talk) 19:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 ( talk) 19:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 ( talk) 19:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Universal Indicator (collective)#Discography: It looks like there are no sources to make this notable. The lead is unreferenced (and is not a summary of the content below). Also, there are probably not enough material to warrant a standalone article. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge into Universal Indicator (collective). There is no reason to include the tracklisting, but the rest of the two articles should not be deleted. Cambial foliage❧ 14:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Cambial Yellowing: which content do you propose to merge, specifically? Neither article has any sourced or substantial content other than the track listing. Lennart97 ( talk) 14:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

The images and lead content. Cambial foliage❧ 15:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Mega Rock Music Magazine

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

I can't find any evidence that this magazine is or was ever notable, perhaps its an issue with the common name but I can't find any sources beyond what I removed because they were all WP:COPYVIOELs of images of the magazine, so nothing of value was lost even by removing them... CUPIDICAE💕 19:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: I was a teenager in the UK in the 1980s, and I've never even heard of this magazine. It appears to have been a monthly publication, with each issue focusing solely on one artist and their associated acts, and consisting mostly of a giant fold-out poster, with bits of trivia and gossip about the artist. Definitely aimed more at "fan club" level rather than any serious music publication like NME, Melody Maker, Sounds or Record Mirror. Edit: I've just seen the edit history of this article, and I'm 99% certain I know now who the temporarily-blocked article creator is. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Richard3120 as in a sock or IRL? Also I did a lot of searching for this magazine and the only thing I can find is the ISSN and ebay...doesn't look like it was ever much of anything. CUPIDICAE💕 20:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Almost certainly yet another sock of one of Wikipedia's most prolific sockers. Going to check their edit history for comparisons. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Interesting, I assumed based on their rapid fire reverting of the AFD template they had to be new! Maybe I'm giving sock masters too much credit. CUPIDICAE💕 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm now 99.9% certain, and the article's other editor, Travishill4634, will be the same person as well. Going to open up an SPI. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete and Salt sock editor trying to create article about a non notable magazine that I'm sure if was allowed, he would then say that's proof to continue his disruptive editing about some boy band. NZFC ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Update: the two editors who created content for this page are confirmed as socks of each other, at least. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:V and WP:OR. Unreferenced articles are original research, no matter how much this meant to you as a teenager. Bearian ( talk) 16:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete based on consensus around the GNG threshold, since specific notability guidance are presumptions subordinate to the general guideline. Go Phightins ! 23:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Tiarn Powell

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

PROD was added last year due to WP:NFOOTBALL failure and was removed with According to its article, this is the top-level national league. By insisting that it is not "professional", you are making the sexist argument that women can never be notable in this sport.

While searching for coverage to see if Powell could pass WP:GNG, I did a search focused on Australian sources. The best that I could find were a trivial mention and quote in The Transcontinental and an article in The Sydney Daily Telegraph, which is a long quote from her but contains no actual significant coverage of Powell herself. The notability that GNG requires must come from other people writing about Powell. There is nothing in this article nor outside of it that establishes why Powell is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda ( talk) 23:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete fails GNG. I do believe it passes NFOOTBALL. Noah!^💬 18:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
- It doesn't: the W-League is not listed as a fully professional league. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 20:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - As per above fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Cuoxo ( talk) 19:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Simione001 ( talk) 01:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Brandon Goldman

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

Feel like this needs more than PROD as it's a longstanding (auto)biography. The sole claim to notability (being on the cover of SI) is really that a photo of him with a teammate is used to accompany an interview with the teammate. There's no information on Goldman there or in any other sourcing I can find with which to build an article. StarM 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable college basketball player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete concur with nom. MB 21:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete I believe Goldman fails WP:GNG. Additionally, if this page were to stay up, it would need to be developed significantly. This is certainly a stub. Jonathan170 ( talk) 00:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn (see [7]). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Andy Dolich

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

Non-notable BLP with no reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

ESTfield

Lack of notability - SteveBrownIreland ( talk) 18:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 3. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment, there are some WP:RS here and here. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 19:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

SailingInABathTub, That's half a sentence and then a full sentence. Fails WP:SIGCOV, I am afraid.--04:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 04:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:OR. Citing it to a fan page is original research, not a Wikipedia article. Bearian ( talk) 16:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Franziska Bröckl

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

None of Bröckl's appearances qualify under WP:NFOOTBALL as it has long since been established that youth caps do not make you automatically notable. The best coverage that I could find were this Westfalen Blatt article and this NW article, neither of which even come close to showing a passing of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable footballer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete coverage that I found was primarily routine coverage from Bochum that did not address the individual in-depth. No significant coverage found and does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Jay eyem ( talk) 16:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 23:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Signal Hill Whisky

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

Non-notable whisky brand. I found one book mention for it, but it doesn't look very solid to establish notability. What do whisky conneseurs think? Bbarmadillo ( talk) 19:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 19:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 19:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The most notable thing about this brand is that it's owned by Actor Dan Aykroyd. While it might not be note-able yet, it's on it way to being so quickly. Dustintitus ( talk) 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Still an unknown quantity in the UK still. Not tried it, but from what I have heard its very sweet. Only seen a couple of reviews on smaller blog sites. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 20:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment This article is WP:TOOSOON, it does need tidying up -- Devoke water 19:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 17:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. None of the "keep" opinions (to the extent they are even intelligible) indicate that there are reliable sources for this topic (instead they indicate the opposite, as Elmidae points out). Sandstein 23:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Kenopsia

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

WP:BEFORE brings up nothing that doesn't directly link back to the Tumblr blog "The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows", the most "notable" of which being a passing reference to the post in the book Feminism and Intersectionality in Academia – another one being a horoscope in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. At its core, this subject has no original, reliable literature upon which to base an encyclopedic entry. At best, this subject in its current state of notability could be reinstated on Wiktionary with attestation such as the aforementioned book chapter mention, but it's so flimsily and nebulously defined by essentially one anonymous person as to be wholly unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. The article's current state – completely uncited, full of unverifiable speculation about when kenopsia may allegedly manifest – reflects this. This was originally PRODed by Joseywales1961 and was endorsed by me soon after, but it was removed by Andrew Davidson without a mention in the edit summary, and they haven't gotten back in touch with me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep/merge This is especially topical during this year of pandemic lockdowns and there doesn't seem to be a better word for the concept. In any case, the obvious alternative to deletion is merger to The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉( talk) 18:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment Hey, Andrew. Topicality doesn't define whether or not a subject merits its own Wikipedia article; notability guidelines do. A (very) partial merge actually seems like a fine idea to me and like something I would Support, as I wasn't aware TDoS had a Wikipedia page. As I said, I've found citations linking back to this definition, so it would be a pretty trivial matter to include a mention of it under the 'Notable words' section. As far as what can be merged over? I would say "not much". The last two paragraphs are basically unsalvageable OR. Most of the first paragraph is fine, as is the concept's relationship to COVID-19 ( with appropriate sourcing). The best rationale for a merge, in my opinion, is just the redirect that would be created to The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete in its current form the article is uncited and OR, a similar BEFORE to the noms was carried out by myself before I PROD'ed this with results as are so well explained by TheTecnician27 above in the nomination for AfD. JW 1961 Talk 18:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Zero treatment in the scientific literature, and outside that it's dictdefs. Without a minimum of independent coverage, there's also no call for merging anything to the article on the dictionary - sensibly that article is not a listing of all the contents and restricts itself to actually notable terms ("Sonder"). -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep/Merge Hello, i am the creator of the article, i had not heard of the concept of Kenopsia until i saw a youtube video which mentioned it and i decided to research, just like you, i couldn't find any reputable sources other then the tumblr blug, after using some of googles tools to try to track down the first mention (as to create a "History" section), but while the tumblr blog wasn't scientific in any way i decided to cite it as it seemed to be the earliest mention of "Kenopsia" and while i do somewhat believe that i should not have written the article due to lack of sources, i didn't realize that there was an article for TDoS already, so i would be fine if it was merged, but my article isn't the first, there's other articles that don't have much of a lead either and they too describe emotions, i couldn't find much about noctcaelador or hireath on google or any other search engines, of course those articles do have better leads then just one tumblr blog, hireath i would like to think is part of welsh culture and the concpet of noctcaelador was created by a William E. Kelly, a person who is likely more known then the tumblr blog i cited for my article, and one last thing before i sign off, i would like to believe that wikipedia is one of the most trusted websites in the world, and we all have our duty to make sure that articles stay true and original, many people use wikipedia and trust it, i've used it for many years, so has everyone i have known, if i wanted to know about something the first place i usually go to is wikipedia, and when an article doesn't exist i use google, but when that just brings up a tumblr blog, i know that i'd want to create an article for it on this safe, trustful website that almost everyone knows about, and so future people won't have to click on a random tumblr link to know more, which is still a risk in 2021, and that's why i not only joined wikipedia but also why i created the article, to share my knowledge with the world, to contribute, to make a little known concept that only a few may have known about, avalible to the entire world population of english speakers and readers, thank you for reading. OGWFP ( talk) 20:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Let's cut to the chase: i couldn't find any reputable sources other then the tumblr blug - there's your problem. If there are no reliable sources, we cannot have an article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 22:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows has WP:MADEUP a lot of neologisms, but they need not be made into redirects. Not a real thing or substantively and reliably covered as such whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 23:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

SeaPeeKay

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

I did a quick google search and see the platforms he takes part in, but I don't see the in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy ( talk) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 16:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 16:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - Yet another non-notable Minecraft streamer. Poydoo can talk and edit 22:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - For what it's worth, he had a couple of mentions ( [8] [9]) in the Guinness Book blog. Apparently for inventing new ways to play Minecraft competitively. As far as I can tell that fizzled, though. ApLundell ( talk) 23:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. IceWelder [ ✉] 09:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - The article fails WP:GNG as there aren’t much articles made about this person. The only notable articles that I found were two articles from the Guinness World Records. ( Jullian Neon) 20:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per lack of WP:RS, and also WP:OUTCOMES. Only has poor sources. We have deleted dozens of pages about YouTubers, even those with millions of followers, if they can't be sourced properly. Bearian ( talk) 16:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 14:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Stereotypes of French people

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

This is a low-quality article that is, presently, a brief list of vaguely-cited unencyclopedic views about French people with citations that rarely reach into actual discussions of stereotypes themselves and focus more on whether this purported stereotype is valid. I am unconvinced that this is notable, valuable, or encyclopedic. "Stereotypes of..." pages are something of a "bad edit magnet" in general, and I don't think this page has enough good edits to suggest that there is enough content to justify the existence of this page. It's had a "please improve" tag since last November, with no substantial improvements, and the content (and content quality) of the article appear similar throughout the article's life. Kistaro Windrider ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Kistaro Windrider ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Kistaro Windrider ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Kistaro Windrider ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Kistaro Windrider ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Anti-French sentiment, with selective merging. No reason for separate article on negative stereotypes. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect per User:El cid, el campeador. Doesn't warrant its own article. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep you bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Lugnuts: Please see WP:AFDEQ. Thank you. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 23:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep passes WP:GNG. Seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKETHIS. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 11:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I think my argument was more along the lines of the two articles being duplicative and not seeing any reason not to merge. Your argument seems to be WP:ILIKEIT. GNG is really not a relevant rebuttal to this nomination. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
I was addressing the nomination, specifically the statement "I am unconvinced that this is notable, valuable, or encyclopaedic", not your comment. I was making the point (albeit briefly) that the subject, Stereotypes of French people has significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, as cited in the article and therefore should not be deleted. Since you have raised your point with me, it should not be re-directed or merged for two reasons 1) the topic is independently notable (see here, here, and here) 2) French stereotypes do not have to have their origins in anti-French sentiment, such as the stereotypes related to romance and sexuality (see here). SailingInABathTub ( talk) 13:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Anti-French sentiment. This does not warrant its own article and it is poorly written. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 23:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Anti-French sentiment, selective merging, does not need to be a separate (thin) article. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 16:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep The article is very poorly written as others have pointed out, but it's definitely fixable. As for notability, the topic is definitely notable, a google search brings up tons of results. I don't think it should be merged to the Anti-French sentiment article as it has received plenty of coverage on its own, and many stereotypes are of a comedic tone and not actually anti-French in nature. Pladica ( talk) 02:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect. Nominator. I'm ambivalent on what it should be redirected to, but I'm not persuaded this article is valuable. I could easily just not be imaginative enough to see what it could be if it was written well, though; I'd like to hear what folks who think "needs fixing, but keep" is the correct strategy think, vaguely, the article should look like after it's fixed. What presents the topic in a valuable way that isn't the current "list of stuff that just kind of exists"? It'd be a lot more interesting if this had history and cultural context, and I can see the value in a "Stereotypes of..." article in that context. But I don't see any reason to believe that this will ever become that article. I feel bad discussing the article I'd like to see and then not volunteering to write it, but I don't think of myself as good at, well, writing articles. Kistaro Windrider ( talk) 03:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep by gar. It is not the same as anti-French sentiment. Zut alors! Some stereotypes are quite flattering, e.g. great lovers, connoisseurs, suave, etc., n'est pas? Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep per our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." There are numerous more sources available for this such as Of Stereotypes and of the French. Andrew🐉( talk) 21:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Weak keep. A quick look at GScholar suggest the concept is discussed in scholarly works. There is likely more in French language. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 03:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
If the current title is retained, then it should Redirect to Anti-French sentiment. There is a disconnect between the title, which is neutral, and current content, which is negative. Other stereotypes off the top of my head are: one of the world's top cuisines, high fashion, luxury branding, classic cinema and New Wave, film stars, world standard for wines, fashionably-dressed women, a vibrant night life, famous artists and museums, the standard for flirtation and seduction, public veneration and interest in intellectual currents, the birth of second-wave feminism and a vibrant feminist scene, a welcoming environment for American blacks discriminated against at home, the French Riviera, world-level engineering in high speed trains, fighter jets, jumbo aircraft, and aerospace; and so on. If the article is kept, either the title or the content has to change, because per WP:AT, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles," and currently the article fails that policy. Mathglot ( talk) 06:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep - well-sourced and whole books and libraries of articles have been written about it. Adieu! Bearian ( talk) 16:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep: I think the topic is notable without even looking and looking at sources in the article show this. I don't think this article should be merged or redirected to Anti-French sentiment, sentiment and stereotypes are two different things (eg: there are "positive" sterotypes such as in the High Fashion and romance sections, but anti-sentiment would obviously always be negative). The article defintely needs to be expanded // Timothy :: talk 03:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIR. No significant reliable sources on page. On inspection linked sources are either dead or WP:UGC. NY Times cite on page does not mention the model of bus it is used against. Night fury 14:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Night fury 14:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Night fury 14:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Night fury 14:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep, I don't see a substantial question as to whether this is verifiable regardless of the current state of links on the page. The history of the MTA's infrastructure, as with any comparably large and notable transit agency, is a relevant part of our coverage. postdlf ( talk) 17:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. Total fancruft mostly sourced by self published sources. This article could also be consider too: Retired MTA Regional Bus Operations demonstration bus fleet Ajf773 ( talk) 08:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
- Done, see here. Mtattrain ( talk) 06:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete and keep general information in the active fleet page. Mtattrain ( talk) 05:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Sourced to personal websites, fails WP:GNG.---- Pontificalibus 10:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. It turns out that the deletion request by the now-blocked IP was some kind of trolling attempt. Sandstein 19:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Alice Sakitnak Akammak

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

Procedural, completing the AFD nom for 85.84.33.17, who added the template but did not finish the nomination. --- Possibly ( talk) 14:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 14:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - The deletion request by IP 85.84.33.17 is retaliatory in nature. Netherzone ( talk) 16:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes it is pretty pointless as far as I can see (meets WP:ARTIST 4.d) but we have in the past entertained badly formed AFD requests by disruptive editors. The alternative was to delete the malformed AfD request, which I did, but then reconsidered.--- Possibly ( talk) 22:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - The subject of the article meets notability criteria for WP:ARTIST as her work has been collected by several museums. All of these collections are verifiable. Netherzone ( talk) 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep as above, Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 16:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep represented in the collections of the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Winnipeg Art Gallery and Peary-MacMillan Arctic Museum. Vexations ( talk) 22:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
- Also, a permanent block or ban for the nominating IP and their socks please. Vexations ( talk) 22:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment - Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the notoriety of the subject. Do not base the entire article on original primary sources directly involved. User Vexations You must allow your opinion and comment on the subject in question, this is not a fascism or Nazi dictatorship asking for an indiscriminate blockade without arguments.-- 85.84.33.17 ( talk) 12:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
- See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sorginak/Archive. I have a list of some 20 IP related to that account. 85.84.33.17 is one of them. Vexations ( talk) 13:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

off-topic

Comment - There is something called a presumption of innocence and that investigation has no course whatsoever, it is just a retaliation for the editor's ego. It is noted that you are an intimate "friend" of Possibly, but here what is nominated is the Article for deletion by Alice Sakitnak Akammak that lacks independent sources. That said, user Netherzone speaks of retaliation. It is necessary to remember that the real retaliation is generated by your group of friends: Netherzone, Possibly, Vexations, and SlimVirgin. A group that always goes together and supports and defends each other. The bad thing is that they also get together for retaliation and conspire against who dares to criticize them, becoming the rustler group, an organized group (mafia) of wikipedia. That said, you can block me. I'd rather die standing than live kneeling. Your group is also being investigated for a long time. Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.84.33.17 ( talk) 13:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - I will NOT defend myself against that absurd accusation because I almost always forget to log in, so the different IPs are generated and when I remember to log in I forget the password. That is not a crime. Greetings and more serious is yours. You are always the same.-- 85.84.33.17 ( talk) 13:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep NARTIST 4(d), and OMG what a bunch of trollery from that IP. Sorry about that. Theredproject ( talk) 19:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:ARTIST 4(d) Beccaynr ( talk) 04:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Bindu Krishna

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

A politician who was never elected as an MLA or MP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra ( talk) 17:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Cuoxo ( talk) 18:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete does not meet the notabilty guidelines for politicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. People do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just for holding unelected roles as regional political organizers, but this is not referenced to anything like enough reliable source coverage about her to get her over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat ( talk) 02:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete: Reliable sources are weak and non notable politician. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 08:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Meenakshi Sivaramakrishnan

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

Unable to find RS to establish notability. Plus, the books mentioned don't seem to turn up on a DDG search. If bio does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC then delete Vikram 14:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram 14:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram 14:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom: Did a WP:Before and could not find anything. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 14:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Current sources fails in WP:GNG. Cuoxo ( talk) 18:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete not even close to being a notable educator. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:PROF. Bearian ( talk) 16:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Khan Kluay#Characters. Sandstein 19:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Khan Kluay characters

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

Complete WP:CRUFT with no sourcing. I'd be mildly forgiving if it were a list of characters across the entire Khan Kluay franchise, but it seems to only cover the first film. (The film page is iffy quality itself, but has a greater claim to notability.) Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Khan Kluay#Characters where the primary characters of the film are already listed. This list is completely unsourced and as this just covers a single movie, it is not a reasonable WP:SPLIT from the film's main article. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect, not a noteworthy list on its own. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

The Brewer's Art

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

I'm not crazy, the #1 Bar would be notable, but looking at the archive, it doesn't appear that's what Esquire actually said. It seems to be UCG based on the slider. Either way, not a clear pass for notability. It got some buzz around an Ozzy Osbourne cease & desist and is used as a location in the Wire, but not sure that all adds up, so thought it worth discussion. StarM 02:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: A newspapers.com search shows 1,795 post-1996 hits for "The Brewer's Art", including several half-page spreads in the Baltimore Sun (e.g., 1; 2; 3). And according to this article, "Draft Magazine also chose the Brewer's Art ... among its 100 best beer bars of 2003. ... Similarly, Esquire chose Brewer's Art as one of its best bars in the U.S." The "#1 Bar" moniker appears to be a bit misleading ( details—basically, it claimed the top spot for a short while based on user votes using that slider), although it has some significance, and Esquire also "listed the Brewer’s Art as one of the best bars in America in June 2007." -- Usernameunique ( talk) 07:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 08:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks usernameunique. Trying to see if I can access the Baltimore Sun pieces. StarM 15:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Star Mississippi, here you go: 1; 2; 3; 4. Not the easiest to read, unfortunately—newspapers.com seems to have a maximum width for clippings—but hopefully they help. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 22:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. O’Prey, Maureen (2018). Beer in Maryland: A History of Breweries Since Colonial Times. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 196–197, 227–228, 304. ISBN 978-1-4766-6773-7. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  The book notes on pages 196–197
  Brewer's Art was another brewpub that opened within the city limits of Baltimore, in the resonant Mount Vernon area. The genesis of Brewer's Art came about like many great ideas—from a few friends sitting in a bar. One of these was historian Volker Stewart. [12 more sentences about the founding of Brewer's Art]
  In September of 1996 Brewer's Art opened its doors to the cost of $525,000. The first batch of beer was brewed in December of that year. The first year went well, and brewery production ran at around 500 barrels per year. The first year went well, and brewery production ran at around 500 barrels year. There was a learning curve moving from home brewing to industrial production that was quickly sorted out. During the first year (1997) Stewart lost two partners. The first chose to leave the business and the other moved to France (and became a silent partner). Despite these changes, Stewart weathered the storm and did so successfully. Helping him keep the brewery on track was his brewmaster Steve Frazier, a physicist by training, a brewmaster at heart. [Eight more sentences about Brewer's Art and Frazier's work at Brewer's Art]
  The book notes on page 304 that the Brewer's Art "was fighting an infringement claim in 2014 for their Ozzy beer label with the Osbourne family" and spends a paragraph discussing the infringement claim.
2. Siple, Evan (2014-11-14). "The True Grist The Brewer's Art - Drinks". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2021-02-21. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  The article notes, "The Brewer's Art is known nationally as a top bar destination, scoring a nod from Esquire magazine in 2009 as the No. 1 bar in America."
3. Murphy, Liz (2017-01-20). "Naptown Pint: The Brewer's Art explores the marriage of beer and food". Capital Gazette. Archived from the original on 2021-02-21. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  This is a restaurant review. The article notes, "Located in the heart of Baltimore, The Brewer's Art has rightfully earned a reputation as a Mecca of artfully crafted beer laid against the backdrop of a fine dining experience." The article further notes about The Brewer's Art, "a visually captivating blend of stark white and black paint, contemporary art and the modern American brewing tradition nestled with surprising comfort in a renovated brownstone born of Victorian restrain".
4. Fromson, Daniel (2012-09-06). "Brew In Town: The Brewer's Art Resurrection". Washington City Paper. Archived from the original on 2021-02-21. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  The article notes, "Sure, Brewer’s Art’s Green Peppercorn Tripel and its Ozzy golden ale can impress you with their corked 750-milliliter bottles, but when you're enjoying Mellow Mushroom’s roof deck on a warm September afternoon, iconoclasm tastes best."
5. Ladd, Jenn (2013-10-16). "The Brewer's Art". Baltimore City Paper. Archived from the original on 2021-02-21. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  The article notes about The Brewer's Art, "The two-storied Mount Vernon beer haven has been popular since it opened in 1996, and when talking with owner Volker Stewart, that success seems almost effortless: no gimmicks, no marketing strategy, just solid products."
6. Meehan, Sarah (2017-01-10). "As Baltimore restaurants mark 20 years, owners share what gives them staying power". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2021-02-21. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  The article notes, "When the Brewer's Art opened in 1996, servers spent a lot of time educating guests on the farm-to-table food and experimental beer the restaurant was making."
7. Dumenco, Simon (2009-11-24). "Oriole Kooky". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-21. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  The article notes, "On the way, I stop at the Brewer’s Art, a local landmark of a bar in a beautifully preserved row house in the historic Mount Vernon neighborhood." The article later notes, "Wide selection of ales and an ambitious gastropub menu."
8. Kurlantzick, Joshua (2009-09-29). "36 Hours in Baltimore". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-21. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  The article notes, "calling the Brewer’s Art (1106 North Charles Street; 410-547-6925; www.thebrewersart.com) a bar is like calling crabs just another shellfish. Housed in a classic town house, the pub takes its beers very seriously, pouring everything from Trappist ales from Belgium to local microbrews like Clipper City Pale Ale."
9. Sovich, Nina (2017-01-24). "Touring F. Scott Fitzgerald's Baltimore—Reborn and Revitalized". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-06-05. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  The article notes, "The Brewer’s Art is a beloved Baltimore brewpub known for its beers and its basement lounge, where patrons can gather around the bar or find a nook for quiet conversation. The restaurant serves modern fare with a Baltimore twist—think squash pierogies with oxtail ragout."
10. Brace, Eric (1996-10-25). "She Swore the Prettiest Place on Earth Was... Baltimore at Night:". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-21. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  The article notes, "enter the Brewer's Art through the basement door. You'll be in the best bar I've found in ages. Dark and warm, with low brick ceilings, arched doorways into hidden nooks, and lots of great beers on tap, the Art's underground spot welcomes all types without judgment, late into the night."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Brewer's Art to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 10:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep Looks to pass WP:GNG per Cunard. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep - Article is currently anemic, but notable per Cunard's above elaboration of substantive secondary sources. Sauzer ( talk) 18:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 14:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

American traditional informal freeform solo folk dancing

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

None of the sources cited mention anything even closely resembling the article title (closest was probably "solo freestyle" in the "Brief History of Clog Dancing" link). A web search for several subsequences of the current title returned no results, "traditional informal folk" has apparently one real result on Google Scholar, but only relating to Tibetan culture. This seems to be original research or even a hoax, assuming the current title is correct. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete and add to WP:DAWFT. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 19:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. there's a long discussion on the article talk page about why this is notable, with which I agree, and to which I refer; but there does seem to be agreement thee that a differently worded title might be needed. Judging for deletion on the basis of a web search of a title is hazardous--it's a useful step to see quickly if are references, which might make it unnecessary to do a full properly conceived search for the subject no matter how expressed; however, searching for general subjects or ones which might be worded in many ways is difficult. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep The topic is definitely notable, although this article is pretty bad, and the title is also unwieldly. Perhaps it would be better off as a list article linking to the types of dancing with a quick description of each? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete and add to WP:DAWFT due to the unwieldly title and lack of sources. Even just skimming through lightly, I can see not nearly enough citations are there. Even though I know this is a bad idea to mention in an AfD, I would suggest WP:TNT. 4D4850 ( talk) 17:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article cites no reliable sources that verify the substance of its contents, making this fail WP:V and probably WP:NOR, never mind WP:N. If something like this really existed with this silly name, finding sources for it should be trivial. If this isn't a hoax or made up one day, it's hard to distinguish from that. Sandstein 19:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete: Article is OR essay, I seriously doubt there is a notable article here, but if there is this needs TNT for it to emerge. // Timothy :: talk 03:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Chriselle Almeida

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

lack of significant and reliable resources that are independent of the subject. LucyLucy ( talk) 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy ( talk) 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy ( talk) 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy ( talk) 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for articles on actresses. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment I was hoping she's be in more than one episode of the Big Bang, but it would seem not. All she seems to have done are bit parts. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs| talk 20:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep I was able to find and add sources (in addition to what was already in the article about her starring role in a film) that indicate she has starred in two films and had what appears to be a substantial role in another film, in addition to her notable television appearance. Per WP:NACTOR, she appears to have had "significant roles" in multiple productions. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

John Giordano (politician)

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

this is nothing more than an overblown PR piece. I had assumed that someone appointed to the UNGA would be notable, but that doesn't appear to be the case. The other 3 people who were appointed are notable, however, not for being appointed and have held other positions (elected or otherwise) that meet WP:NPOL. The coverage here is minimal and the original claim that he was a "strong contender" for the US Attorney position are contradicted by two of the sources here, one which says he considered running vs. being considered by Trump. In any case, it never went anywhere and beyond a few GOP talking heads saying "he's great!" there isn't any coverage of it.

None of the other positions he's held are notable, they're basically assistant to the notable person/position.

As a note, I really dug into the UNGA positions and based on our article and the fact that even voted-on chairs and committee members don't have articles/aren't notable leads me to believe this one-time appointee with no meaningful coverage isn't either. (I know, I know. WP:OSE but I was using this as a gage of our standards for these positions.) CUPIDICAE💕 13:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete I did some digging as well and didn't see anything aside from a few mentions that he might be "in the mix" for the US Attorney of Philadelphia and the UN delegation. Doesn't look to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note An "overblown PR piece" is hardly fair considering I included an article critical of his association with Trump Bedminster Golf Club. His position with NJDEP is relevant to that relationship. Another contributor added the information about U.S Attorney which I agree is not relevant as he was never nominated nor is there any indication he was being considered by Trump. I disagree that someone appointed to UNGA is not notable. The lack of entries for those persons should not justify the oversight. There is additional information on him, including his association with Trump that I plan on adding. I was also planning on entries for the other three members appointed, but will wait to see if this article is deleted. Tommybrae ( talk) 15:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to touch on the many reasons why your assertions are wrong, but I will note that the other three members do have articles because they were notable before the appointment and not because of it. Two were elected to congress which inherently meets WP:NPOL, another is the commissioner of American Battle Monuments Commission (though I have some doubts about notability because of this, she also meets WP:NACADEMIC). The difference between those three women and Giordano? They all have coverage and held notable positions as per WP:NPOL. Giordano has not and does not have the required coverage that is required to establish notability. CUPIDICAE💕 16:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

First you slammed a very neutral article as "an overblown PR piece" and now you cancel me as "wrong" without providing any meaningful feedback that will help me improve my skills or provide me with guidance to include additional information that would meet the threshold. I expected more from this community. I will continue to add info as time allows until a decision is made. Tommybrae ( talk) 16:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - The main thrust for notability is representing the Us in the UN General Assembly. Although one might 3expect that to be notable, it needs to be demonstrated with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In my search, I did not find such coverage. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep but it could probably use more of a re-write with more sources to further demonstrate notability. John Giordano is becoming mildly notable per his positions and appointments. His range of positions are notable, though not excessively so. But I think that more sources and citations could further show the context of his mild notability. - KJS ml343x ( talk) 16:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Can you provide any of the sources that show his notability? I looked for a while and had no luck. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

KJS ml343x none of his appointed positions meet WP:NPOL and he has never been elected to an office. CUPIDICAE💕 16:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete hasn't received enough coverage to demonstrate notability, and if kept, probably needs to be renamed since he's clearly not a politician. SportingFlyer T· C 18:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note Praxidicae, who submitted this for deletion, continues to make edits to the article. They have have added content they believe is noteworthy along with comments to justify the inclusion. I don't believe someone would spend time improving an article they truly believed should be deleted. I hope this justifies keeping the article. Then Praxidicae can continue to edit. Tommybrae ( talk) 21:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommybrae ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

How ridiculous. This should still be deleted, my edits were merely reverting your blatant attempt at whitewashing. CUPIDICAE💕 22:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

You've omitted a fact: You added a sentence with the source. I didn't think it was germane so I deleted it (I still think it isn't). You reverted my edit thus re-adding your sentence. And now we are having a lively debate about content on a article! Again, you have shown it is worthy of keeping. Tommybrae ( talk) 22:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Do not put words in my mouth, I have not and will not advocate for keeping this article. He isn't notable and you haven't found a single source that would establish that he is. CUPIDICAE💕 23:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I did not "put words in your mouth" but you did put words in the article after having submitted it for deletion. You can't have it both ways - it should be available for anyone to edit, not just you until you cancel it for everyone else. Tommybrae ( talk) 00:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Are you insinuating that a nominator cannot edit the article or it invalidates the nomination? CUPIDICAE💕 00:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

One of your edits was changing this: Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential Campaign to this: Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign. I reverted your edit because it is grammatically incorrect and made the article look amateurish. You reverted it back! Why? To make the page easier to delete? How do you even have admin rights? Tommybrae ( talk) 22:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Tommybrae you're really failing to understand the basics of Wikipedia. How do you even have admin rights? Easy. I don't. But my comments here and edits to the article aren't what preclude me from being an admin. CUPIDICAE💕 13:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment It is not unusual for long-time editors to find an article worthy of deletion, yet make edits in a good faith effort to bring the entry nearer to acceptable standards. This is what I attempted at a related biography, Gregory Montanaro, which was in far worse condition. This is done in much the same spirit as ministering to the terminally ill. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 15:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete: Sourcing entirely fails to push this across the line of NPOL, NBIO or GNG. Jack Frost ( talk) 10:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Shield characters#Ronnie Gardocki. Merging content from the history is up to editors. Sandstein 19:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Ronnie Gardocki

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

Zero real world notability. Simple brief mentions, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of The Shield characters. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect Character not notable enough for his own article. It is worth noting, however, that I had a ferret named Detective Vic Mackey. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge. There is some reception, but it seems to fail WP:SIGCOV - it's one-two sentences about this character here and there. Still, this can be salvaged by merging the reception section, which is much more important for us than the plot summary fancruft (which can happily exist on some fan wikia). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 04:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment- As a significant contributor to this article, that approach would be welcomed should the consensus here be for delete (which is looking likely). The reception section is the only part I'm responsible for anyway, the plot summary was resurrected from years ago. Should the reception be merged into Gardocki's section on List of The Shield characters, I'd probably be willing to add similar sections for the other major characters there too-- among other things, the article as a whole needs some serious work. Ridiculously over detailed. Also, if there are any experienced users reading this with knowledge of The Shield, I'd appreciate their opinion on as to whether any of the other more major characters may perhaps be notable enough for a stsndalone article. Which, again, I'd probably be willing to give a go. Thanks. VideoGamePlaya ( talk) 07:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect Content can be merged either way if someone finds it necessary. Raymond3023 ( talk) 17:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge It's debatable whether it's enough to pass WP:N but there is some good content to WP:PRESERVE. The target is almost all primary sourced and needs some help. Archrogue ( talk) 18:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Enkelejda Arifi

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

The singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 ( talk) 16:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria for musicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Genc Tukiçi

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

Artist doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 ( talk) 16:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Darwen LPD

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There isn't any information about the company itself, only that Darwen Group bought it. NHPluto ( talk) 10:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NHPluto ( talk) 10:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 3. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, LPD has some mentions but nothing which would establish notability. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 10:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete, per nom. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 11:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete; company dissolved in 2012, little to no chance that anything new will come up. Night fury 13:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. -- Devoke water 08:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hollie Robertson

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

Sources do not suggest notability, fails WP:GNG Devoke water 00:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Devoke water 00:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Devoke water 00:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Devoke water 00:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Devoke water 00:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: Devokewater, did you "Search for additional sources" before nominating the article for deletion, as required? Your comment suggests that you did not, and fails to acknowledge that " if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Had you conducted such a search, you would have found plenty of sources. Examples: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 22:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, I googled + researched her. -- Devoke water 22:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep the article needs to be rewritten with better sources. But a cursory search suggests WP:SIGCOV. Will work on incorporating some this week. Redoryxx ( talk) 10:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep, clearly passes WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep I agree that this passes WP:GNG. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep She meets notability criteria and via Google I found a wide number of credible news media based sources documenting her dancing and contest career. The article should be re-written a bit, fleshed out, and more sources added. I believe WP:SIGCOV comes into play. Hollie Robertson definitely seems to be notable enough to merit inclusion, but better and more sources are needed. KJS ml343x ( talk) 17:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep She is notable and passes WP:GNG but agree that the page could be improved. Stuhunter83 ( talk) 23:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep Evidently a notable dancer as per WP:GNG. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 15:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is a close call, but after two relists and very limited support in favor of keeping, I am going to go ahead and close this one without prejudice against a future nomination. Note that this does not imply the current state of the article is acceptable, but the notability argument has not reached consensus after two bites at the relisting apple. Go Phightins ! 00:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Janardhana Maharshi

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

Promo article on a non notable film writer who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:CREATIVE, & following a WP:BEFORE search I observed the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls to satisfy WP:GNG also. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Undeleted per request at my talk page. Since it's been less than 24 hours, I am reverting my close and relisting this, and will be pointing the requestor here to comment as they produced sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep The article ( /info/en/?search=Janardhana_Maharshi) was initially deleted, As I've not given any links before. They were added later and was undeleted. Janardhana Maharshi is a very notable Person, So please kindly keep this article. Thank you.

Please find the sources: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] TejaTanikella ( talk) 07:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep Google search results suggest that Janardhana Maharshi is a moderately notable person in the world of Telugu filmmaking. Some of the article sources seem significant enough news sources to demonstrate Janardhana Maharshi's notability, other of the sources look a bit low quality to me. I think the subject just barely meets WP:CREATIVE, as for WP:GNG the Telugu language news sources I see in Google augment the English language ones. The sources are reliable and known from the context of Southern Indian news media, and the subject seems to have sufficient coverage therein to merit inclusion. I think the article should be kept: but should be definitely improved and re-worked a bit. KJS ml343x ( talk) 17:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G7 North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Instituto Tecnológico de Comitán

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

Created in error! Sorry. Themightyquill ( talk) 10:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - not a problem, we all do this from time to time. In future, please consider tagging WP:G7. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

TermWiki

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

NN. Little-to-no in-depth coverage beyond a few blogs/press releases/promotional sources. Antigng ( talk) 12:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rochers, Arianne Des; Corbell, Sonia (Autumn 2012). "TermWiki : survol d'un outil terminologique pas comme les autres. Outil informatique unique en son genre, puisqu'il fonctionne de façon libre et ouverte, TermWiki est un outil prometteur qui sait se démarquer par ses points forts… malgré ses lacunes" [TermWiki: overview of a terminology tool like no other. A unique computer tool of its kind, since it operates in a free and open manner, TermWiki is a promising tool that knows how to stand out through its strengths ... despite its shortcomings.] (PDF). Circuit (in French). No. 117. Ordre des traducteurs, terminologues et interprètes agréés du Québec. p. 28. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28 – via Academia.edu.
  I retrieved the article from https://www.academia.edu/12143585/TermWiki_survol_d_un_outil_terminologique_pas_comme_les_autres.
  This is a 594-word review of TermWiki in a French magazine. It is cited on page 299 of Handbook of Terminology, Volume 1, a John Benjamins Publishing Company book. From Google Translate:
  In itself, the platform is easy to master: you must first create a file in English, then offer equivalences in other languages. However, we have noticed that most of the definitions that are not written in English are translations. ... TermWiki also has an infuriating number of typos as a “first step”. In addition, the tabs and divisions of the site are innumerable, which makes navigation sometimes complicated, and some pages are not translated. ... Unveiled to the public in May 2011 by CSOFT, the free version of TermWiki already has more than 11 million terms in 75 languages and millions of users. So while the terminology tool is still in its infancy, it has potential if the global community
2. Varga, Cristina (2013). "Virtualization of Research in Terminology. Cloud-based Terminology Management Tools" (PDF). Scientific Bulletin of the Politehnica University of Timişoara Transactions on Modern Languages. 12 (1–2). Politehnica University of Timișoara: 27–28. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  This is a 368-word review of TermWiki in a Romanian journal article. The review notes:
  In our opinion, Termwiki is a complex cloud-based terminology management tool, a good solution for professionals and enterprises and an excellent training ground for students. It is also a successful online open community of terminologists outstanding activity consists of glossaries in 102 languages, classified in 1 716 categories, and comprising 5 610 207 terms.
3. Fóris, Ágota; Gaál, Péter (2013). "Lexicography, Terminology and the Role of New Mobile Devices in Teaching Terminology". Terminologija (20). Institute of the Lithuanian Language: 78. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28 – via Central and Eastern European Online Library.
  The journal article can be accessed by creating an account on Central and Eastern European Online Library.
  The journal article provides three sentences of coverage of TermWiki: "In the point of view of terminology, the most interesting Wiki project is maybe TermWiki, which is a free, multiple-language, online, collective terminology database. The reason TermWiki is new and interesting is because it combines the features of collective free multiple language dictionaries and features of popular social network sites. TermWiki allows non-professionals, professionals, terminologists and translators to share knowledge, edit pages of terms or create brand new pages."
4. Bowker, Lynne (2018). "Lexicography and terminology". In Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro A. (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Lexicography. Abingdon: Routledge. p. 142. ISBN 978-1-138-94160-1. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  The book provides four sentences of coverage about TermWiki. The book notes: "[two sentences about TermWiki] Although the open version of TermWiki presents a vast and interesting collection of layperson-generated term records on a wide range of subjects, it is unclear the extent to which professional terminologists actually consult or make use of this collection. However, TermWiki also offers private, professional versions that could be used internally within an organization by a 'closed crowd' in a manner similar to that of the MTCF described above."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TermWiki to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 11:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep per Cunard's excellent digging for sources. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:HEY. The sources provided by Cunard. Best, Taung Tan ( talk) 11:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Naman Y. Goyal

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

Do not show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:RS Timberlack ( talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack ( talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Timberlack ( talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack ( talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs| talk 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't soft delete since it survived its first AfD. Nom has been blocked as a sock anyway, so one relist for good-faith commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

weak keep all the major references are IMDB, and can not be considered as reliable, maybe someone can try to add more sources and re write it properly. ImNotAnEntrepreneur ( talk) 01:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete IMDb is not a realible source and we need to stop building articles on it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
delete I couldnt find anything to establish notability under WP:GNG, or WP:NCREATIVE. IMDb is not a realible source and we need to stop building articles on it. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Cerro Cesius

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

Total failure of WP:V and has been since creation. I will happily withdraw this nomination if anyone can even provide so much as a scrap of proof that such a mountain exists, but to the greatest extent of my ability to search, I have not been able to do so. GEOnet shows no results for the word "cesius" in Chile, and since "cerro" means mountain, that nets you, oh, 6000+ results, so that doesn't help.

Absolutely zero hits on Google or GBooks. Every hit I found was a false positive - typos, hits on similar words, or instances where a sentence ends with Cerro and the next one starts with Cesius, or vice versa. No article on any other wiki to swipe sources from. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:V, even if it does exist it fails WP:GEOLAND. There are a large number of named and unnamed peaks in the Chilean Andes that would fail WP:GEOLAND where no information beyond statistics and coordinates exist e.g. [10], and here is a list of 40 peaks from 4270 to 4293M elevation, all sourced to maps, only some of which are named, and that's the 49th page of 40 for Chilean mountains.---- Pontificalibus 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete, per nom. I can't find any evidence that this mountain exists. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 12:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Although I found this totally legitimate word search for mountains in Chile which includes Cerro Cesius, that's literally the only thing I could find that wasn't ripped off from Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
It exists. I tracked it down on a map. It appears to be a typo that's manifested across Wikipedia languages. There's not much on Cerro Ceusis apart from a mention in a scholarly journal and a listing in a Chilean governmental document. [11] SportingFlyer T· C 00:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

SportingFlyer, thanks for finding that. I tried to double check to see if there were any further sources that would show the topic meets WP:GEOLAND, but I can't find any, so ultimately I'm still in favor of not having a standalone. But I wouldn't argue with a redirect to maybe List of mountains in the Andes (under the corrected spelling, of course). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I think a redirect makes a lot of sense. I know this isn't technically evidence of anything, but the fact this can go unnoticed for so long clearly shows it's not notable. SportingFlyer T· C 10:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - per above, this is an incorrect name, and the actual mountain probably isn't notable. A redirect from the correct spelling would make sense, but I don't think we should be propagating an error by having this spelling. Hog Farm _Talk 14:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Agree - should probably have written "a redirect makes a lot of sense, from the correct spelling." SportingFlyer T· C 15:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
And a redirect from the wrong spelling too, since its propagated around the internet, even to internet word search websites! ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Tauno Tekko

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

Footballer from non-FPL league who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner ( talk) 07:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Humayun Kabir Sadhu

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

Subject is not regarded as an important figure or is not widely cited by peers or successors.
Subject is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
Subject has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.
Subject's works have not: (a) become a significant monument, (b) not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) not won significant critical attention, or (d) not been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 05:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: The nominator makes no claim to have carried out a search for sources, but there are quite a few—especially under Sadhu's Bengali name, হুমায়ূন সাধু. He also has a considerably longer article on Bengali Wikipedia, with 19 sources. This feels like a case where notability would be clear were it not for the language barrier. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 07:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep- Per this source and wide spread coverage and tributes in all major media publications. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 16:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Sagar Aryal

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:A7 applies. The article is written like a CV. nirmal ( talk) 05:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nirmal ( talk) 05:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. nirmal ( talk) 07:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: By all indications, this article is on a different subject than that of previous AFDs. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Fair point - the previous AfDs related to this person, a young green activist associated with a "Plant for the Planet" initiative. The two will need to be distinguished for this AfD. AllyD ( talk) 11:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. The most relevant notability guideline here is WP:PROF. The subject is a current PhD student, with an h-index of 5 and top-cited paper with 14 cites in GScholar [12], way too low for WP:PROF#C1. There are several awards listed but they are mostly student level/promise awards or else not sufficiently significant to indicate notanility under either WP:PROF#C2 or WP:PROF#C1 on their own. The case for WP:GNG/ WP:BIO is also too weak as with the exception of the Kathmandou Post article, the other sources are either primary or non-independent or both. In any case, for a GNG pass for a blogger, I think we'd need a great deal more significant independent coverage than is indicated here right now. Nsk92 ( talk) 13:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete totally fails the academic notability guidelines. Also does not pass the writer notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Khatabook

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

Run-of-the-mill software. The article does not provide evidence of satisfying software notability or general notability.

Naïve Google search shows that it exists and that the company advertises. We knew that. But no third-party coverage found.

Sources included in article do not provide significant coverage:

Note number		Significant coverage?
1	Crunchbase	Deprecated
2	Inc. 42 interview	No, interview
3	Indian Digital Awards	No, an industry award

Moved from article space to draft space four times in past year due to suspected UPE. See log: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&page=Khatabook

Deleted from draft space as work of a sockpuppet once. See draft log: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:Khatabook&action=edit&redlink=1

After being moved to draft space four times, it is time for a deletion discussion instead. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. Seems to fail WP:NCORP/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. VocalIndia ( talk) 13:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Physical information

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

Indiscriminate combination of various uses of the word "information" in physics, apparently written as an essay in 2005 and never fixed. PROD declined. Actual scientific literature will sometimes use the words "physical" and "information" in proximity, but as we've seen before, the bag-of-words approach to judging notability does not work for technical topics. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete, basically per WP:TNT. The physical aspects of information theory have been studied, there are survey articles about this general topic (e.g. [13]), and we have appropriate articles on aspects of this general topic; see e.g. Black hole information paradox. Extreme physical information seems to be something else, a fuzzy topic in mathematics studied by a few fuzzy mathematicians following a book Physics from Fisher information by Frieden that MR 1676801 strongly suggests as being fringe; I'm skeptical that it's notable but in any case it is better covered at its link than here. This article seems to be even less than either of those things: a grab-bag of topics linked only by the words "physical" and "information". I don't think it is salvageable, except maybe by throwing away all but the "see also" section and calling it a disambiguation page, but even then it probably wouldn't meet the standards for what should be a disambiguation page. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
- Yes, the "physics from Fisher information" business is very fuzzy, with a lot of assuming-the-desired-answer [14] [15] [16]. XOR'easter ( talk) 06:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment I have to be away for a while, probably longer than this AfD will run, tending to other things, but hopefully it will shake out adequately without me. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delores Chamblin

AfDs for this article:

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

She makes things that are sold in some gift shops, but does not rise to the level of meeting GNG. The article has previously been deleted under this name and under a similar name (Afd discussion on the latter here.) Kbabej ( talk) 04:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej ( talk) 04:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Blatantly advertising..also she does not meet notability guidelines. Also, as noted, previously deleted. I seldom, if ever, vote delete, but this merits a delete for sure. Antonio The Airbus A380 Martin ( como?) 05:18, 3 March, 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete, doesn't pass WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 12:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete, although it hurts me to do so to the author of Bathroom Tissue Toppers to Crochet. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete nothing notable, gift shop crochet items? No, not notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, didn't pass WP:GNG. SunDawn ( talk) 18:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete falls incredibly short of GNG. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 20:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete: per others.--by Alcremie ( talk) 14:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete In agreement with prior comments. Stuhunter83 ( talk) 22:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing and closing as nominator. My WP:BEFORE was not WP:BEFORE enough, apparently. My bad. (non-admin closure) WhinyTheYounger (WtY)( talk, contribs) 01:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Alice Hunt Bartlett Prize

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE reveals no substantive discussion of the award. Prize does not inherit notability from being awarded to notable people. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)( talk, contribs) 04:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)( talk, contribs) 04:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep A respectable award, named after a notable person, awarded to notable people by a notable society. Not seeing the problem. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep First off, if you're looking for sources look for the Alice Hunt Bartlett Award as well as Prize, as both terms are used. It is listed as an award in The National Directory of Grants and Aid to Individuals in the Arts, International and is mentioned in tons of literary directories from the period it was awarded. Listed here in the 1985 Book Publishing Annual. It's mentioned as an award for everyone who's won it in the Who's Who books of poets, it's mentioned in Library of Congress Information Bulletins [17]. It's even in an issue of the Statesman from 1968. To me this is an example of an enormous amount of mentions establishing notability. All of these sources wouldn't be noting that someone won the award, or that the award was getting ready to be announced, or an author mentioning the award without the award being notable. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep referred to in The Times as "Britain's major annual poetry prize": The Times Diary, Author: PHS, Date: Thursday, May 21, 1970, Issue: 57875 Piecesofuk ( talk) 16:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WhinyTheYounger (WtY)( talk, contribs) 04:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Poetry Society

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE reveals no substantive discussion of the award. Prize does not inherit notability from being awarded to notable people. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)( talk, contribs) 04:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)( talk, contribs) 04:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 09:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Online media cooperative

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

The article has no reference at all. A search on Google only found really scant remarks of the concept, and all of the results are on blog-like page and none of them are WP:RS. Google Scholar results and searches on journals turns up nothing. SunDawn ( talk) 04:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SunDawn ( talk) 04:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. SunDawn ( talk) 04:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. - Cupper52^Discuss! 09:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete As the nominator says. SoyokoAnis 00:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete: Barely found anything about the term. ASTIG😎 _{(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Northwestern European people

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

This article appears to be massive WP:SYNTH. WP:REFBOMBED with any use of the phase "Northwestern European people" in the literature, regardless of context. I can find zero evidence that "Northwestern European people" is an independently noteworthy topic, as there appear to be no sources that specifically discuss "Northwestern European people" as a pan-ethnic group. See also Northwestern European Americans and Northwestern European Australians, and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_73#Northwestern_European_people for previous discussion of the issue. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

To gives examples, in the first sentence of the non-lead section of the article, it states that Northwestern European people have been identified as a distinct pan-ethnic grouping. They have been researched in academia in historical, cultural, linguistic and anthropological studies.^[1]^[2]^[3]Neither of the three citations with quotes back up the first sentence's claim that Northwestern European people "have been identified as a distinct pan-ethnic grouping", that's clearly a novel synthesis. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I have now nominated Northwestern European Americans, Northwestern European Australians and Northwestern European Canadians for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwestern European Canadians. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 06:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete as synthesis. So many different usages are being crammed together that the page ultimately conveys no information beyond what applying basic English syntax to the title would yield, i.e., "people from a northwestern part of Europe". XOR'easter ( talk) 05:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete as both synthesis, and being pointless. As mentioned above, one learns nothing from reading the article other than "this is what people from NW Europe are like", which is already adequately covered on the individual articles for the distinct ethnic groups that make up this apparently-made-up conglomeration. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete As original research. jps ( talk) 10:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete, topic appears to be entirely WP:OR. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 10:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:SYNTH and note that the article lacks coverage of the (blood) quantum black hole that forms when a Northwest European mates with a South Eastern European. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Made-up topic. Arbitrary classifactions by demographers and a compass-point do not define a "pan-ethnic grouping". We already have too much articles about made-up "pan"-groupings here, but this one beats them all. – Austronesier ( talk) 13:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - Per everything said above. JurassicClassic767 ( talk | contribs) 18:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC) reply

References

^ Konrad Ehlich; Johannes Wagner (1995). "Negotiation discourse and interaction in a cross-cultural perspective". The Discourse of Business Negotiation (Studies in Anthropological Linguistics). De Gruyter Mouton. p. 185. ISBN 978-3110140392. This also explains why bargaining spans tend to be so great at the outset: this should by no means be interpreted (as many Northwest European people would probably do) as lack of empathy or concern with the other party's standpoint, but rather a tension-creating device
^ Ian Haney López (2006). "Ozawa and Thind". White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. NYU Press. p. 75. ISBN 978-0814736944. "In a variety of surveys, the American population ranked Northwestern Europeans highest, then the South-Central-Eastern Europeans, in turn the Japanese and Chinese, and finally blacks." A year after the decision in Thind, Congress responded to this popular prejudice with immigration quotas
^ Leslie Page Moch (2009). "Migration in the Twentieth Century". Moving Europeans, Second Edition: Migration in Western Europe since 1650. Indiana University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0253215956. Among the immigrant groups from cultures whose religious practices and perceived appearance were distinct from those of northwestern Europeans, the Turks are most important.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete The reference is just a mish mash of everything termed "Northwestern European" while the article fails to establish that such pan-ethnic group even existed. The fact that there are people living in NE Europe geographically does not mean that they are a pan-ethnic group. When a news article about prostate cancer is being referenced in a pan-ethnic group article it shows that the references are a bit dubious. SunDawn ( talk) 01:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per others. Zin Win Hlaing ( talk) 09:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete: per others.--by Alcremie ( talk) 14:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 09:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Toni Scullion

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

Unclear why this person is notable. She seem to have won a large number of awards that are of unclear notability from a small number of organizations, and founded an organization and festival that are also of unclear notability. I have had difficulty finding mentions of her in WP:RS's. Phuzion ( talk) 03:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," because WP:RS exist, e.g. Daily Record 2017, Edinburgh News 2018, The National 2018, Daily Record 2019, The Scotsman 2019, Insider.co.uk 2019, West Lothian News 2019, Edinburgh News 2019, FutureScot 2019 Beccaynr ( talk) 00:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep: as above, Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 16:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
keep, quite a large number of recognition and awards. Needs some cleanup, WP:RESUME applies here. -- hroest 21:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep Seems to have sufficient coverage. Does need some tidying, but WP:DINC. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep: Because it not fail gng yet.--by Alcremie ( talk) 14:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Kent County Council. ( WP:ATD) Daniel ( talk) 09:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Kent Top Travel

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

Fails WP:NCORP. News articles on the closure of a business are trivial routine coverage per NCORP. Zero sources outside local news or trade magazines. SK2242 ( talk) 02:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 ( talk) 02:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 ( talk) 02:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 ( talk) 02:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Merge with Kent County Council as the owners of the company. Night fury 13:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan#District 8. Daniel ( talk) 09:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

2006 Michigan's 8th congressional district election

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. This article doesn't go into a whole lot of detail (at least, detail that would go beyond a simple summary in 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan) into a race that was supposedly somewhat competitive but ultimately did not switch seats, so there's no indication for any special notability regarding this story. Much of the article is instead focused on providing a WP:BIO on the Democratic nominee who lost to the Republican incumbent, so if there is some notability to be found in that topic, I would recommend an entire revamp of the article so it could revolve around that person. Love of Corey ( talk) 02:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment - I'll also have to point out for transparency's sake that this article had been bundled into an earlier AfD, which was closed as keep. According to the user who filed that bundle, Theleekycauldron, the writer of this article apparently "even admitted up-front that this article was basically not notable at all". Love of Corey ( talk) 02:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete The article starts off admitting this was "not a national headline making contest". John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan#District 8, not independently notable, but the sources could be useful at the target. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 08:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge per above - this isn't a notable enough district/election to support its own page. SportingFlyer T· C 21:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Selective Merge (editorially: no more than 2 paragraphs needed) to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan#District 8 per Devonian Wombat. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - No credible claims of notability. -- Michael Greiner 03:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Aiden Renfrow

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

I can find no indication online this racer is currently a notable professional (participating in professional-grade tournaments) to the level that would meet WP:NSPORT. I can find no race information or meaningful secondary sources at all. Sauzer ( talk) 02:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sauzer ( talk) 02:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sauzer ( talk) 02:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Sauzer ( talk) 02:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Not notable. Clearly promotional. Nigej ( talk) 07:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Not notable, lacks sourcing, clearly promo. Redoryxx ( talk) 18:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Content-first marketing

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

Apart from a single book from John Arnott, there is not much mention on this concept. A search on Google Scholar founds out there is no mention of this marketing concept. The article also didn't have any references. SunDawn ( talk) 01:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Zero sources found. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete As above, I was unable to locate any good secondary references. Some marketing news uses of the phrase are out there, such as here, but nothing to suggest the notability of the concept. Sauzer ( talk) 02:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete No sources and a quick search also brought up nothing of note. Redoryxx ( talk) 06:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete: per above.-- Alcremie ( talk) 14:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

List of American television stations available in the Caribbean

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources; may be poorly written Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 00:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 00:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 00:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete no good reason to have this list. It is also not clearly defined. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Per above and it's a stub. SoyokoAnis 01:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete as an indiscriminate list. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete, per nom and poor sourcing. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

[1] ttps://www.eenadu.net/hai/article/general/1903/93699

[2] ttps://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Cinema/2019-02-21/Film-on-K-Vishwanath-to-begin-soon/499190

[3] ttps://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Cinema/2013-07-26/Pavithra-will-be-like-a-head-massage/50318

[4] ttps://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/documentary-vishwadarshanam-is-a-tribute-to-k-vishwanath/article27147375.ece

[5] ttps://www.sakshi.com/news/funday/janardhana-maharshi-creates-own-stamp-in-life-105959

[6] ttps://filmytoday.com/celebs/8244/photos/21296/janardhana-maharshi-pavithra-movie-press-meet-pictures/

[7] ttps://apps.sakshi.com/news/movies/janardhana-maharshis-next-titled-pibare-ramarasam-1189701

[8] ttps://www.telugutimes.net/article/18682/janardhan-maharshi-received-dadasaheb-phalke-film-festival-award-2019

[9] Konrad Ehlich; Johannes Wagner (1995). "Negotiation discourse and interaction in a cross-cultural perspective". The Discourse of Business Negotiation (Studies in Anthropological Linguistics). De Gruyter Mouton. p. 185. ISBN 978-3110140392. This also explains why bargaining spans tend to be so great at the outset: this should by no means be interpreted (as many Northwest European people would probably do) as lack of empathy or concern with the other party's standpoint, but rather a tension-creating device

[10] Ian Haney López (2006). "Ozawa and Thind". White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. NYU Press. p. 75. ISBN 978-0814736944. "In a variety of surveys, the American population ranked Northwestern Europeans highest, then the South-Central-Eastern Europeans, in turn the Japanese and Chinese, and finally blacks." A year after the decision in Thind, Congress responded to this popular prejudice with immigration quotas

[11] Leslie Page Moch (2009). "Migration in the Twentieth Century". Moving Europeans, Second Edition: Migration in Western Europe since 1650. Indiana University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0253215956. Among the immigrant groups from cultures whose religious practices and perceived appearance were distinct from those of northwestern Europeans, the Turks are most important.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

References

References

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook