Knowledge

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. bibliomaniac15 06:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Masumi Chino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom — Amkgp 💬 05:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral. No English language WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. However, from ja:知野真澄 it would seem that he has been successful in Japan, so there's probably something there. _wjemather 11:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Insufficient sourcing to prove notability.Polyglot Researcher (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - having reviewed the Japanese article, I can't see anything there that amounts to notability either. I can see that he's released a darts DVD, which is sort of interesting but no actual coverage with any depth and no indication of notability. Spiderone 19:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 13:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Matt Jackson (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have, and one small very local article ), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 13:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ian Jopling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom — Amkgp 💬 05:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievement does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather 11:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. D🐶ggy54321 17:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OnlyThenDidI (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 11:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 13:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Andy Brown (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom — Amkgp 💬 05:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather 11:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 13:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Mark Jodrill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom — Amkgp 💬 05:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have, plus some very local low-level league/ko stuff), and lack of significant achievement does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather 11:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 13:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Jason Crawley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. John B123 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per norm — Amkgp 💬 05:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievement does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather 11:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted and salted. No need to AfD this article, with its (unspaced) misspelled title, anyway. Please report any further incarnations for similar treatment. El_C 01:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Carmine Carbone(Founder of Garden Foods) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has been deleted several times this week under all sorts of different names. It has also been sent to draft a couple of times but tendentiously moved back so I don't believe that continual draftifying is an appropriate solution. My searches are not finding anything to suggest that Carbone was notable enough for an article; he seems to fail WP:GNG. This is his obituary which is the only thing that comes close to being a source. As he very recently passed away, I suspect these attempts are the efforts of a relative to create an article as a memorial, unfortunately WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Spiderone 23:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete and salt per nom. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: seems to be A7, weak support on salting Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 01:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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 _Work 14:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Subharmonic modes of the climate system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to a non notable fringe theory. See Knowledge:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Concerns_about_editing_of_Milankovitch_cycles_related_articles for previous discussion of the issue. The author of the article Jean-Louis Pinault has the same name as the author of several papers cited in the article, which appear to account for the main bulk of the text. These papers are published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, a MDPI journal. MDPI publications are considered to have low peer review standards. I can find no independent coverage of this theory other than this 2014 blog post by climate change denialist Denis Rancourt. The blog post states that Pinault had been met with sufficiently significant resistance from the dominant scientific cabal, know as "peer review" Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Even setting aside any questions about MDPI's standards, the references are either to background material (rather than the topic of the article) or to primary sources that have had no discernible influence in the wider scientific community. For example, reference #3 has been "cited" 13 times, but only in documents by the author himself on his own website. Likewise, reference #6, the most-used in the piece, has 20 "citations", 19 of which are by the author himself, and 13 of those are on his own website again, while the one exception is in another MDPI journal and barely mentions that the paper exists, saying nothing whatsoever in detail about it. Reference #8 again has 20 "citations", 19 of which are by the author himself with 12 on his own website, and the one exception is a non-peer-reviewed document that only brushes past Pinault's paper and doesn't discuss the paper's conclusion, only taking a few numbers that Pinault (2018) took from NOAA. There's just nothing to work with here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough analysis, I concur that the references are either to background material (rather than the topic of the article) or to primary sources that have had no discernible influence in the wider scientific community Pinault himself even admits that his ideas are largely ignored here stating that: it is a theory unknown to a large part of the scientific community. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Leaving potentially fringe considerations aside, the first problem I see is that the article uses Knowledge like a journal, using primary sources and synthesis, rather than summarizing secondary sources that are immediately about the topic and its conclusions (WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTJOURNAL). The second is that such secondary sources appear to be lacking, meaning that it's too soon for Knowledge and indicating that the theory is non-notable (WP:GNG). —PaleoNeonate – 08:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - This is climate change denial. The author is saying that the Earth is warming due to changes in its orbit and solar activity. It's not. Tercer (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete No sources to indicate the wide acceptance of this theory or its impact on climate science. Dimadick (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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) 01:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Paddy Meaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I could not find any in-depth coverage of this player that would allow us to expand this biography beyond its current form. He does not appear to pass WP:GNG. In addition, his achievements in darts do not put him along the elite players that would warrant an article based on importance. He has only once been involved at any stage of a Major and, on that one occasion, was eliminated in the preliminaries. Spiderone 23:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Waving delete Has been at two World Youth Finals, but nothing else and no real coverage even in darting press.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. --John B123 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather 11:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Practically no sources, and does not pass gng ThatIPEditor 04:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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) 01:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Darren Whittingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Short pieces in the local paper like this one do not amount to passing WP:GNG. According to Mastercaller, he has not even competed in the preliminary rounds of a major tournament, let alone the main draw. Far from being an elite darts player. Spiderone 22:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Other than win tour card coverage, and a local story a few years before nowt coverage and no impact on tour.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG --John B123 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Lack of WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have, and one local-interest piece), and lack of significant achievement does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather 11:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 17:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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) 01:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Andy Cornwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find anything that even comes close to passing WP:GNG. He owns his own darts company but he doesn't derive any notability from that. His career is not that significant that we need to have an article on him. He has played in the preliminary round of a major once but never got beyond that. Spiderone 22:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete according to Dartsdatabase he got to the last 32 at the Dutch Open which is something but other than that nowt coverage.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. --John B123 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather 11:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 17:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Devokewater 17:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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) gobonobo 09:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Eli Clare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails in meeting WP:NAUTHOR Tbyros (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tbyros (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The user Tbyros is known for trying to shake down users for $$ to eliminate the delete nomination - it is a scam. 2601:588:C100:6260:15B2:AB12:25D4:2D17 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment 2601:588:C100:6260:15B2:AB12:25D4:2D17 - this is a pretty big allegation to be making against another editor. Do you have any proof of this? ser! (let's discuss it). 01:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The guy is notable as both a writer and an activist. He has significant coverage in college papers, was selected as a Distinguished Visiting Scholar at the University of Buffalo and has been the subject of radio interviews. And that's all without looking too hard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. He won Randy Shilts Award in 2018 and was a finalist in some other events. The article meets WP:ANYBIO. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Ritchie333 13:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Lil' Mama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable release per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Coverage goes seldom beyond the release's existence and is almost entirely self-published tweets from the artists ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep – a quick Google search came up several album reviews and multiple publications covering its release. I just added 3 from Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork, and Vulture. Carbrera (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC).
• Keep: The links from Twitter, SoundCloud and IG should be removed. Other than that, the other sources seem reliable, including the ones indicated by Carbrera. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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) 01:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Stuart Bousfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This player doesn't seem notable to me. Contested PROD by article creator with comment Has played in a major, he's notable enough.

The best two sources that I could find were name checks here and here. In terms of darts achievements, he has never won a title, never achieved a nine darter and only played in a preliminary round of a major. Most importantly, he doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 22:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete was in last 64 of Scottish Open, a Major on old BDO tour, but no coverage other than Local.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. --John B123 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have, and local league stuff), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather 11:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - we don't have an SNG on darts players, so doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 17:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Spartaz 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Eleven Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence that there's anything notable about this organization. They distribute movies--great. But there is no secondary coverage that actually discusses anything about them, just mentions that they exist (and I just removed a press release saying how good they were in Knowledge's voice). Drmies (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as notable since they have been covered directly in industry periodicals. It looks like this article got fluffed up in the past week and can be reverted to before that as a baseline. Some articles where the company is headlined are:

• Edlead, Eleven Arts partner on pics
• Eleven Arts and Edlead Linking for International Co-Productions
• Eleven Arts goes for the gore
• Filmart: Can Japan Make Anime Great Again? (not substantial, but a good bit to weave in with the rest)
• Eleven Arts acquires 'Maquia: When The Promised Flower Blooms' for US (covers what else they've distributed too)

I'm not as familiar with anime-related sources, so not sure which ones can be considered reliable. I get that the recent puffed-up nature makes the topic look improperly promotional, but I think there could still be an encyclopedic version with a few solid, neutral paragraphs and a list of distributed works. Erik (talk | contrib) 22:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Eleven Arts (the page I added to) is a production and distribution company with prominent anime and live-action titles. There are a number of similar pages for similar companies. Aniplex of America, Funimation, gkids are all notable, respectable, and detailed examples of existing distribution pages for anime films that have similar content to the edits that were made in the past week. Users who access Knowledge in order to use it as an open resource for all information and knowledge for U.S. anime distribution would not be able to have their educational needs fulfilled, and deleting this page would not serve the purpose that Knowledge was intended for. It is confusing as a public user when a dispute is being made with no preface to what a "notable" distribution company would entail. There are several dozen sources cited within these recent edits that show every statement has a press release to verify that it is a major contributor to film distribution and production.

It has been mentioned in every post on this topic that no mod with professional knowledge of the validity of "anime news sources" has weighed in. In order to have an unbiased and informed discussion on the validity of this page's recent contributions, a moderator with a surface level of knowledge of anime news sources weighing in would be needed.

The recent changes to the page, and the current existing changes that are still public, are all lists of films that are associated with Eleven Arts. A list of films and which year they were released theatrically (or re-released in a different country) is public information and valuable information for people pursuing knowledge about film. This information not only has various citations in each section from a variety of news sources (not just "anime news sources" but reputable film websites.) However, all of this information about production and distribution is also displayed on end credits for these film titles. I believe that films at festivals like Sundance should be accessible as public knowledge.

In terms of the recent additions to the Knowledge page, the previous Knowledge page was not at all fact-checked, correctly written, informative, or detailed. There was only one short description line that was copied directly from a 2017 press release. (That, in my opinion, felt like more of an opinion than a non-biased statement.) My additions were to add details that were cited by multiple sources and give a better description overall.

I understand and respect any interpretation of my writing that would lead mods to decide to omit phrases, sentences, or details. I am completely open to any changes with my entry. However, the decision to delete or prevent my changes completely to a previous (poorly fact checked and biased) version of the pages doesn't seem to make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.123.60.146 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Please see Knowledge:Conflict of interest and and WP:PROMO, especially the part that says, "Knowledge articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." Furthermore, the previous version is closer to the ideal version because there is not a lot written about the organization in the first place, though a list of films distributed would work. WP:REFSPAM is also a concern with this draft. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that if the article is kept, I will restore it to the more straightforward version here and incorporate the above-mentioned sources and a limited list of distributed films. I find that coverage does exist, but definitely not 8+ kBs' worth and not 30+ references' worth. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete This is just a list of the films they've distributed, we need to see why they're notable, not just what they do to stay in business. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• What does "why they're notable" even mean? WP:N says topics should be "worthy of notice". The above sources notice the company conducting business and write about it. You're going beyond the guidelines, it seems. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

*We need to see how they satisfy the notability guidelines. Simply having an article about what they do isn't enough. We need to see discussions in reliable, third-party sources such as peer-reviewed journals, newspapers of record, prominent industry journals or the likes of a Time magazine talking about how the business had made an impact or detailing the history of the company, interviews with individuals connected with the business in such sources... This is basically what you would write on the back of a napkin to briefly explain it to someone. Notability implies they are more than a run-of-the-mill business, the article doesn't provide this. I'm not sure there are sources that can provide these facts; if there are, please provide them. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• That is too overly specific. We want significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You can personally insist that the coverage needs so-and-so details, but the guidelines do not require that a business be extraordinary to warrant its own article. It needs to be worthy of notice, and the above links indicate that noteworthiness with not just one-sentence mentions or partial discussion, but especially direct and headlined. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• The guidelines for companies/organization are listed at WP:NCORP. The criteria for establishing notability is strict, take a read of the requirement for "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND and for "Significant Coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH. It is the same criteria for all companies. HighKing 12:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Oaktree b, you seem to be judging notability on the basis of the current version of the article, which is not how notability works. Did you look at the five sources that Erik posted above, or search for any sources yourself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Knowledge is not a Yellow Pages. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 12:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm hard-pressed to believe that Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and ScreenDaily do not qualify as high-quality reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking. Their articles cover a wide swathe of film-related activities that encompasses reviews, production updates, wider critical and audience reception, controversies where they appear, and what film-related organizations are doing. With their history and their breadth even within the scope of film, it is dubious to claim that that these sources are not independent of the content. And here, these sources are literally headlining the organization, so claiming lack of significant coverage is incorrect. I understand and support the need for caution to ensure that Knowledge is not a means of promotion, and we should ensure that articles about organizations are "written in an objective and unbiased style". Knowledge also combines features of general and specialized encyclopedias, and topics will be more covered by topically-related reliable sources than general ones. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per Erik. I chuckled at that relist notice, but ultimately it looks quite overwhelmingly like notability is indicated here. I have some passing familiarity (although nothing resembling expertise or even, honestly, much interest) with anime and found heavy/extensive coverage on Anime News Network, which is a reliable subculture source, in addition to the reliable overculture sources given. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. They have been involved with licensing and releasing many notable films, like the Sound! Euphonium and Laughing Under the Clouds movies, as well as A Silent Voice (film). They also have significant coverage from ANN. Link20XX (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I concur with the assessment made by other users on here. The article should be improved, but it should also be kept at the same time. Historyday01 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I've overhauled the article using the film-related reliable sources that write about the company. I redid the filmography tables and dumped a lot of the promotional language and press releases used. See before and after. Please review to ensure that it meets WP:PROMO. There may be coverage in Japanese-language news sources too, though I wouldn't be able to look for that. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Much better, this is what we were looking for in the first place. I'm neither for nor against at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: The article needs improvement as a whole, but I don't think its notability is questionable. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Forget about PROMO, the crucial piece that's missing are references. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Coverage of the movies does not confer notability on this company. HighKing 21:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  As stated above. Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Screen Daily are reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It is absurd to claim that these periodicals should be disqualified because they cover film, which a film company is inevitably involved with. It implies that no subject-specific publication should be allowed to be a reliable source for being topically related to the entity at hand. Contrast that with something like Kodak being actually affiliated with the cinematography products used in The 40-Year-Old Version here, which should not count toward notability. That's a key difference. Are you saying that Variety and The Hollywood Reporter have an affiliation with the topic because they cover film, or because they benefit fiscally from reporting on this entity? Erik (talk | contrib) 21:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm assuming the sources are "reliable" but you seem to be ignoring the fact that a source needs to be more than simply "reliable". You are also mis-interpreting what is required by "independent" and "significant". Since this is a company/organization, we therefore we need to analyse the sources using WP:NCORP which has two particular sections - WP:CORPDEPTH (which defines significant coverage) and WP:ORGIND (which defined "Independent Content". You mentioned three sources, lets look at the first mentioned in the article from each one:

• This Variety reference is about the Pusan International Film Festival Asian Film Market but the contents relative to this company are based entirely on an interview with its CEO Junichi Suzuki. That fails WP:ORGIND.
• This Hollywood Reporter reference is based on an announcement that the company picked up the rights to a movie and then goes on to discuss the movie. There is no in-depth information on the company whatsoever which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, this also looks very much like is was based on a company announcement and if that was the case the reference would also fail WP:ORGIND as not containing any "Independent Content".
• The Screen Daily suffers the exact same problems. It says nothing about the company (other than they've "picked up" international rights to a movie and "taken over sales") and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the detail is about the movie or details around the movie, nothing about the company.

CORPDEPTH states that what is required is "deep or significant" coverage which mean we require an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis on the company. This "deep coverage" also cannot be "echo chamber" coverage - we need more than regurgitation of information provided by the company. You're trying to excuse the lack of coverage and saying that coverage of the movies can be used to establish the notability of the company. No. Notability is not inherited. If this company was notable, somebody would have written something "in depth" about the actual company using "Independent Content". If you think a reference is out there, link it below and we can check for yourselves. Nothing I've seen and nothing I can find meets the mark so far. HighKing 21:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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. The only !vote was expressed weakly and no interest expressed for deletion. (non-admin closure) Bungle 09:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

notability Robingunes (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robingunes (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I found a few sources of Hürriyet: , , , though I’m having trouble to understand what this is. Is it a stage name for VEYasin or is it an album? Because one of the sources calls him "DJ Hey Douglas" while this article says its a project. We need to look into WP:ENT or WP:NALBUM depending on what it is. Also a note for the nominator: nominations on the English Knowledge tend to have more than one word in it. ~Styyx 11:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

One more additional source in the ongoing AfD on the Turkish Knowledge. ~Styyx 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep per the sources above. Also has been selected the "Best DJ of the year" in the 46th Golden Butterfly Awards as seen here, which is a pretty big thing in Turkey. ~Styyx 08:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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. IAR. This is not and never will be an article. We do not need seven days of bureaucracy. StarM 22:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sister Location Error (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE applies here. I could not find any independent sources covering this topic to establish notability. Spiderone 20:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Primary Fatal Module Error, where the same user is doing much the same thing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The user has now been indeffed, and this article has been nominated for speedy deletion under an impressive three criteria. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Obviously non-notable trivia. It looks like the user was indef-blocked specifically for creating these two articles ... It would be crazy to not also speedy-delete the articles. ApLundell (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Indeffed and NOTHERE creator that I had CSD HOAXed other articles by them today already JW 1961 Talk 22:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Completely unsourced, WP:GAMEGUIDE at best, and likely a hoax. IceWelder 22:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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) 10:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Dhanya Ananya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable actor who doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR as she hasn’t won any prestigious awards neither has she taken up significant roles in the movies she has featured in, generally, a before search shows she lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her, thus this is also a GNG fail Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: My WP:BEFORE gave me 79 results only in Google News, several mentions in Times of India, Film Critics etc., meets WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment — @CommanderWaterford, please see WP:SIGN & do so each time you make a comment for the sake of clarity(please do so immediately) Furthermore, I’m afraid your knowledge of policy pertaining to notability might be inadequate & I do not believe you possess sufficient knowledge on WP:GNG. The number of sources google news popped up isn’t relevant but what matters is the quality of those sources. Mere mentions do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV thus such sources are of zero relevance to WP:GNG which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore per WP:NACTOR she doesn’t meet the threshold as no criterion is satisfied as she is yet to be featured in lead roles neither has she won prestigious awards for actors. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete non notable actor with no major roles. There is no significant coverage in RS.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails the threshold of multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - lacks significant coverage from reliable sources addressing her directly and in depth, does not meet WP:GNG; Celestina is correct Spiderone 19:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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 _Work 14:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Liam Kelly (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete; it doesn't meet WP:SPORTSPERSON.MEisSCAMMER_Hello! 22:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nom. --John B123 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found (only results and profile pages, which all players have), and lack of significant achievements does not inspire confidence that any can be found. _wjemather 11:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - no indication of meeting any inclusion guideline Spiderone 22:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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) 10:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Main (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Undecided Think maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Current refs are not enough. However he has been at several PDC World Youth Championships, and has been interviewed on Dartsplanet.tv and has had enough coverage to get a profile on German darts website dartn. Possibly could scrape by as WP:Basic #2, but as he just won his tour card and not competed at a major senior event yet makes me question if it is too soon. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Lack of WP:SIGCOV found, only results and profile pages (which all players have). No significant achievements to date, so unlikely that any can be found. _wjemather 12:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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 per WP:SNOW as there has been enough discussion to establish that nobody agrees with the nomination. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG woefully Jenyire2 20:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Jenyire2, why does it "fail WP:GNG woefully"? And did you look for sources before nominating the article, as required? The company is all over the news recently. Examples: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6. As the article's creator, DavidFarmbrough, said in the edit summary creating the page, "Added power supply company - people will be looking it up here." That seems likely, just as the subject of the article seems notable. Incidentally, you should have left a talk-page message for DavidFarmbrough. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, per the comments of User:Usernameunique above, and a WP:TROUT to the nominator for a woefully misguided nomination. Not only is the company very much in the news now, but even a cursory GoogleNews search shows plenty of earlier coverage, much of it in depth (e.g. , , , , , , , ). Certainly passes WP:GNG by a long Texas mile. Nsk92 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. obvious keep per comments above. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - coverage clearly predates the current situation (I just added a 2019 source), and it doesn't sound like the current moment will give it less attention. So it meets WP:GNG; WP:NCORP is a bit more of a struggle, but looks likely to clear that as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks like consensus to me, but just in case: This article/company is not only notable--meets WP:GNG--but also a part of a significant event and will make any question of failing WP:NCORP moot. Any motion to delete is misguided. Improving this article and illuminating its significance/role in the Feb 2021 Texas storm and ensuing crisis serves Knowledge's Mission as a service to inform, empower and engage. Knowledge can be, should be, must be, helpful and accretive to the current emergency and to the longer term analysis, discussion, and policies to protect citizens, property, and general welfare.

CmdrDan (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — notable energy supplier that, regrettably, didn't have an article until it made the news for its actions during the February 2021 storms in its home market. This article should be kept and expanded. White 720 (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep — notable energy company with now in-depth coverage and seemingly, more coverage coming.Mazurkevin (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Leave it up. This company has been a over US news lately. The person who flagged it needs to not be so narrow minded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsdtk (talk • contribs) 05:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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. TheSandDoctor 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Stuart White (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Only claim to Notability is losing to Fallon Sherrock which got some coverage www.bbc.com/sport/amp/darts/51347291.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG --John B123 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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 _Work 14:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ian Walters (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Was semi finalist in 2016 at BDO British Open, but other that some Local and just run of the mill results, mainly defeats when he was on the tour.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom --John B123 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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. TheSandDoctor 18:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Case of WP:TOOSOON.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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) 10:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Jason Heaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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. TheSandDoctor 18:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Tony Richardson (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Other than a last 32 in the BDO World Masters back in 2000, which was some ask back then, not much else.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG --John B123 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 13:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Curtis Hammond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - As per nom, fails WP:GNG --John B123 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable darts players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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) EN-Jungwon 14:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

NGTS-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Mentioned in the discovery paper of its exoplanet and just about nowhere else. Some secondary coverage of the exoplanet discovery from a few years ago, nothing since. Faint, nothing particularly unusual about the star or its planet. Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - notable because of its relative size compared with its exoplanet, as reported here. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - but it needs a substantial rewrite. Phrases like "which is usually impossible" are more sensational than informative. Instead of citing the "factslegend.org" webpage, the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.11099 should be cited. But I think notability can be established for this systemPopePompus (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep multiple writers are covering this so passed WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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 Shades of Blue (TV series)#Cast and characters. Daniel (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Harlee Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't feel this article passes muster for WP:GNG. It's a very brief page, with only two sources of baseline character observation. Generally, it's not too common that a character is notable enough to merit an individual wikipedia page. Walter White, Buffy Summers, Tony Soprano, these characters had significant coverage to warrant their own pages. This does not. Rusted AutoParts 19:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge. I can't even get a preview for González (2019) so it's hard for me to assess if the discussion of the character in that source is trivial or in-depth (if anyone can do so, preferably with quotes here, please ping me). The coverage in Slate has maybe 2-3 sentences that go beyond plot summary at best and as such, I think it is close to trivial than in-depth, and therefore the sources shown here seem to fail GNG/NFICTION test for stand-alone articles. Nonetheless, it would be a waste to just delete that referenced paragraph on reception - I suggest merging it to Shades_of_Blue_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters since I don't think we have a List of Shades of Blue characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge per Piotrus to find common ground. This is hard to expand without more coverage but it can be preserved. Archrogue (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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 _Work 14:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Beryllium chlorate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

One of several unsourced or poorly sourced inorganic compound stubs recently created by Keresluna (talk · contribs). Deprodded without explanation by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). The original rationale, by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), read:

This compound does not appear to exist. Chemical book and pubchem do not prove that it can be made. The only reliable reference I can find is from 1929, where it could not be made.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Quick search in Google Books gave me several good hits, e.g. here https://books.google.es/books?id=yZ786vEild0C&pg=PA79&dq=%22Beryllium+chlorate%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMouPJmvTuAhWRUcAKHZ8qD2QQ6AEwBHoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Beryllium%20chlorate%22%20-wikipedia&f=false CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination attacks myself and the good-faith creator but fails to provide a reason to delete. The prod was feeble too – the difficulty of making the compound is not a reason to delete – see unobtainium. Apart from what's in the article, the source cited by CommanderWaterford – Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds – is the clincher. This is easy to find – I did so when deprodding. The failure of the nominators to mention this demonstrates that WP:BEFORE was not followed. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The before was definitely done as there was a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Beryllium chlorate. There is a section in Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds, but that section also calls it chlorite, and has a formula for perchlorate, and suggests it is a hydroxy compound. The melting and boiling point look extremely dubious, as the compound would be expected to decompose with high heat. It also claims that actinium is a halide. There are no references anywhere near this section in the book. So I am strongly suspecting the book is wrong and an unreliable source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I will also retract my claim above that 10.1135/cccc19290377 is about this substance. After checking more carefully it is actually about Beryllium chloride, for some reason here called "Beryllium chlorat". So it means no reliable references found by me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete While we can have articles about substances that haven't been synthesized, we need to have something to say about them — significant coverage, even if only speculative. For example, unbiunium is conjectured to lie within the island of stability, and there's plenty to say about it despite the fact that no laboratory has managed to produce it. That doesn't appear to be the case here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I think that raising the quality of WP has to mean increasing the proportion of good articles, which necessarily involves deleting bad articles. And I think that experts (pace the idiot Gove) are the people to determine whether an article is good or not. Unfortunately my grasp of chemistry is very weak, so I can't really tell what would be wrong with reacting beryllium with hydrochloric acid to make beryllium chlorate. So actually I would be very happy to have my opinion entirely disregarded, on condition, of course, that opinions from other contributors who surely know even less about chemistry than I do are also disregarded. I refer, of course, to members of the "rescue brigade" or however it is that they style themselves, whose grasp of just about anything appears to be limited to string matching. ¶ Meanwhile, it looks like we may have another Cardarelli on our hands. R C Ropp was born in 1927 (according to his own, actually quite interesting memoir) and thus created the 1200-page "Encyclopedia" referenced above at the age of 85, some feat only a few years after completing the 630-page "Handbook of Glass Fractography" (from the publisher's blurb: "Every soul is a labyrinth and a riddle. A soul is a collection of fragments, moments and memories glittering like jewels upon a web. Every piece has connections to all the others.") The latter does seem to be more about glass than souls, but has its own fascinations. The author, born in Detroit, Michigan, naturally writes in American English, and his trademark typographical curiosity "i.e.-" is apparent throughout, but around page 6 he switches to British spelling for a change of air, I suppose. Some sections of the book use Fahrenheit temperatures, other sections Celsius, while Microsoft mock-ancient ordinal superscripts dance in and out around regular ones. What an oddity. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Even if this compound exists, it has had no significant coverage in reliable sources and is thus not notable enough for Knowledge. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Mike Turnbull and the fact that we do not reward "trivia bombing." Non-chemists do not appreciate the deluge that Wiki-chem could be subject to if we encourage this activity. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. According to Knowledge:Manual of Style/Chemistry, topics about chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Knowledge, but this one appears to not meet the criteria. Reba16 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Regarding the coverage in Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds mentioned in previous comments, I am a bit skeptical; to start, the claimed formula Be(ClO3)2 and the claimed 92.4632 g/mol molecular weight seem to be contradictory. (Perhaps I misunderstand.) I concur with some of Graeme Bartlett's concerns about the source. In any case, I am not convinced there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting. The molecular weight for magnesium chlorate later on the page also looks wrong . XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The claimed 92.4632 g/mol molecular weight is supposed to be Be(ClO₃) and the pubchem entry CID=57502505 quoted as a reference in the article even has this drawing with unmatched charges (i.e. 2+ for the Be and 1- for the chlorate) — but is marked as "Non-live". The "correct" pubchem CID=129631187 is also quoted in the article but has no useful reliable sources associated with it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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) — Amkgp 💬 17:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Eduardo Recife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is completely unreferenced and I can't find any reliable significant coverage. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep (medium-ish). Google books has lots of coverage (example), and he has been mentioned in books by important design folks like the Smithsonian's Ellen Lupton. Possibly (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is an interview in Juxtapoz magazine, and coverage in a book on illustration. He is included in this book on Brazilian design by the Museum of Modern Art, Sao Paolo. Let's also remember that there may also be sources in Portugese.Possibly (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Judging by this WP:PRIMARY source, we should expect a GNG pass because it looks like he has arguments under WP:NARTIST 4 b) and 4 d). Turning directly to GNG, here are some independent and in-depth Portuguese or Spanish RS that others might have missed: 1, 2, and two that are not very in-depth but give indirect evidence of his notability, 3 and 4. This is on top of a bunch of coverage of his books, some of which was given above, which gives further credence to the signs for an NAUTHOR argument too even if the NARTIST direction isn't sufficient. Note that I have just included Portuguese or Spanish sources; there are lots more English sources but I assume others can find those. Some of these sources directly attest to his notability (a good sign for, say, NARTIST 1), with for example the Hoje em Dia article calling him "bastante procurado" — really sought-after. This article needs better sourcing but in terms of notability it is a comfortable keep. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Bahar Kol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Playing 30 mins in a Champions League qualifier against Minsk is probably about as close as she ever got to meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. I also believe that Kol fails WP:GNG. I found nothing better than what was already provided in the article in a WP:BEFORE search. Source analysis to follow below. Spiderone 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Source analysis - no evidence of any WP:SIGCOV; see below Spiderone 18:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=30&kisiId=1252177			This is just a profile page on the national FA website that every player has	✘ No
https://www.haberhurriyeti.com/haber/3324553/sampiyonun-hocasi-kaptani-kim			mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.sondakika.com/haber/haber-konak-uefa-sampiyonlar-ligi-hazirliklarina-devam-4812803/		?	mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.uefa.com/womenschampionsleague/match/2017231--konak-vs-minsk/?referrer=%2Fwomenschampionsleague%2Fseason%3D2016%2Fmatches%2Fround%3D2000669%2Fmatch%3D2017231%2Findex			no coverage to speak of	✘ No
https://www.milliyet.com.tr/yerel-haberler/osmaniye/osmaniye-kadin-futbol-takimi-sampiyonluk-parolasi-ile-kampa-girdi-11612629			a name check	✘ No
https://www.milliyet.com.tr/yerel-haberler/hakkari/hakkarigucunde-transfer-atagi-11853756			another name check	✘ No
http://www.silivrihurhaber.com/alibeyspor-tekirdag-da-zorlanmadi-5-0-65992.html			yet another name check	✘ No
http://trakyasporgazetesi.com/m-haber-48470.html			mentioned only once	✘ No
https://www.futbolamator.com/2020/03/akdeniz-nurcelikspordan-gol-yagmuru/		?	again, mentioned just once with no analysis	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20151122185852/https://www.cihan.com.tr/tr/u17-kadin-milli-takiminin-aday-kadrosu-aciklandi-339807.htm			yet another passing mention, no depth	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete nothing even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - As per above MaskedSinger (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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. bibliomaniac15 06:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

HTL Buses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another WP:NCORP failure. SK2242 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment In GB Bus Magazine (though can't read what it is) and has a section in the British Bus Handbook: Notable Independents 7th Edition ISBN 9781912063550. As I can't see either I can't really say if they meet gng.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Only found one news piece which failed LOCAL, No significent coverage, Book is probably a mere mention and IMHO that alone wouldn't be enough to keep the article. –Davey2010 20:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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. IAR per reasons below and at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Sister Location Error. We do not need bureaucracy StarM 22:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Primary Fatal Module Error (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Part of this article reports some sort of error in Minecraft (see WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE), and part of it is inexplicable drivel about mailmen, pizza, lawnmowers, and Happy Meals. None of it is encyclopedic. I'm tempted to just speedy it as a hoax, but it seems there might be some kernel of truth underlying the article. In any event, sending it here should put a permanent end to it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - For the obvious reasons of WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and failing the WP:GNG. I'd almost argue this could be Speedy Deleted as blatant vandalism. Rorshacma (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - clear WP:GAMEGUIDE violation and no evidence of any significant coverage about this Spiderone 18:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Obviously non-notable trivia. It looks like the user was indef-blocked specifically for creating these two articles ... is that not cause to speedy-delete the articles? ApLundell (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per ApLundell above, problem user creating other Hoax articles today JW 1961 Talk 22:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Completely unsourced, WP:GAMEGUIDE at best, and likely a hoax. IceWelder 22:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G12. (non-admin closure) Bungle 18:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Operational BIM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article subject matter could be merged into the main building information modeling article. Also article is not written in encyclopedic style, subject matter notability is debatable (less than 5000 Google search engine hits), it currently has no references (apart from a vague list of external links) nor links to other Knowledge pages, and as some content is seemingly sourced from a software vendor, there may be a conflict of interest. Paul W (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Ritchie333 13:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Road of Memory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacking independent, non-promotional sources. Anything mentioned here could easily be in the main Patriot Park article. Initially redirected but reverted without explanation or improvement by user who previously used bad policy rationale to remove a CSD tag. Etzedek24 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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) Guinness323 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul F. J. Eagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article fails Knowledge:Notability (academics), having only two citations, neither of which address notability. Guinness323 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The article fails Knowledge:Notability (academics), having only two citations, neither of which address notability. Guinness323 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Google Scholar ] shows more than 20 article with more than 100 citations and an h-index of 41. Clearly notable. scope_creep 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes PROF-C1 with citations, easily. Possibly also PROF-C5 as a distinguished professor at University of Waterloo.--Eostrix  ( _hoot🦉) 18:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Meets NPROF #1. Doesn't meet #NPROF #5 as he is only Emeritus Professor, and as per his own Linkdn page it looks like he was a lecturer or reader, and not a chair.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Meets ��WP:NPROF, h-index of >40. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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 Bodo-language films. Consensus is to redirect the article. The article history will remain if any appropriate content can be merged. (non-admin closure) Bungle 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Bodo films of 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not quite sure what to make of this one. For starters, it's not much of a list. Secondly, the scope ("some films 2021") seems vague and random, to put it mildly. It's barely referenced, so can't establish notability. Could be also a pointless fork of Bodo (?) films, or Indian films of 2021, or something else. The point is, there's no real point to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to List of Bodo-language films, no need for any further action or discussion as to whether there's a "point". Whether that list should contain only notable films is a matter for talk page discussion there. Regarding sourcing, a distributed film (as with any published work whether printed or audio-visual) is a reliable source for its own content. postdlf (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Bodo-language films. Redundant Donaldd23 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect per Donald. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge the single cited film to List of Bodo-language films. No need for separate list. Onel5969 17:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect. No need of a list for every specific year. Tessaracter (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Bodo-language films. Kolma8 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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) 10:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Public Arts International/Free Speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This festival certainly occurred, no question about it. And the Between the Covers source is good coverage. The issue is, that's the only in-depth source provided, and the only one I could find in searches. Several mentions on Books, but like the other sources currently provided, they only show the existence of the booklet, and don't speak to the notability of the event itself. Might be due to when it occurred, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 16:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 16:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I only see very minimal coverage for this event. Possibly (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a huge name checking exercise and the coverage appears to be routine and doesn't meet the inclusion criteria based on event notability guidelines Graywalls (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

additional comment: - there's some serious sourcing and notability issues with some of the articles linked in the long list of name drop. Graywalls (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Coverage isn't there. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Maintain I created the page because this arts festival was formative in the career of many notable artists, so is therefore notable. As it took place in 1979, during the pre-digital era, there was not a lot of references available on the internet. But more may appear over time. For art historical purposes, I strongly advocate for maintaining the page and improving it.Valueyou (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete low profile four day event does not inherit notability from the participants. It can be mentioned in their articles if it's relevant to their careers and sourced. Pre internet is a red herring for notability as offline sources are adequate StarM 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Maintain Strike dupe !vote. Onel5969 13:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC) I will just point out that this page seems comparable to the Howl Festival, which is well established.Valueyou (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Other Stuff exists, but HOWL Festival ran for ten years. That's a very different scenario. StarM 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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. bibliomaniac15 06:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Other than the reviews in the Skeptical Inquirer, which speak to its lack of accuracy, there is nothing to establish notability for this book. StarM 16:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete As the man said. I'm not finding any further reviews - any likely candidates turn out to be about the similarly named Shermer book instead. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, this one is curious, although being held bay around 500 libraries, have been unable to find much in the way of reviews eg. here is a tiny review from The Physics Teacher. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, have informed the paranormal wikiproject about this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Tone 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Florian Hempel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable darts player, non-ranked and has not won any major contests. ... discospinster _talk 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Just got his tour card.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - coverage goes little beyond 'Hempel gets his tour card' and since he has never played in a major tournament, I would have to agree with WP:TOOSOON Spiderone 19:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Tone 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Jordan, Edmiston Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find sources that would demonstrate WP:GNG, only press releases and passing mentions. A run-of-the-mill consulting firm. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: searched google under the name of the article and "JEGI". Nothing of note was found. Existing sources do not prove notability. Only one possibly could (min magazine), but it was pretty short and did not mention the company. In addition, the magazine is not around anymore. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Even the Min magazine puff piece (such as it is) is about the CEO, not about the company. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Tone 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

A 2006 no consensus close. While searching is a challenge due to the number of e-forwarding services, I cannot find any sourcing on which to write an encyclopedia article about this transport protocol. It's possible it could be part of a list (of protocols?) but what that would be is unclear. StarM 15:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Barely found anything about the website. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Tone 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Kinjal Dhamecha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The person fails WP:ENT. Started professional acting in 2021 and WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMOTIONAL — Amkgp 💬 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per notability concern. --C1K98V 05:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Ritchie333 19:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Assault (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources thus does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've found some coverage such as a review from Nerdly and an article about principal photography ending from HorrorNews.net, both of which are usable to establish notability. However that's all I'm finding so far. There is other coverage, but it's almost entirely local, which isn't the best establisher of notability since local papers are likely to cover local people (present or former) and local productions. I'd need at least another review from a RS or more coverage of production from non-local sources to really make this a firm keep for me. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure we should use Nerdly as an indication of notability either. According to their About us page, anyone can submit a product for them to review - meaning any product no matter how notable could be reviewed by them and we don't have any indication of knowing. That with the fact that almost no other RS exists makes me wary. BOVINEBOY2008 10:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Eh, that's not much different from most outlets as most have some form of submission guide. It's not really a guarantee that they review everything or that every review will be positive, which are two of the things that would weaken a site's ability to be used as a RS. An argument in the site's favor as a RS is that it's been used as a reference in this book from Taylor & Francis, this one from Bloomsbury, and has managed to get directors of notable films in for interviews. It's not the strongest RS out there, but I'd consider it to be generally reliable as far as horror and pop culture is concerned. I wouldn't use it for political commentary or potential BLP claims, however. In any case, if they were accepting payment, reviewing everything under the sun, or had a history of only giving out puffy praise (coughcough*AICN*coughcough) then I'd be more skeptical of the site. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• As far as article notability goes, Nerdly isn't so major of an outlet that a review from them would merit a keep on that basis alone. Not that I think that any outlet has that sort of power, mind you. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Tone 16:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Stuart Anderson (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The person fails WP:SPORTSPERSON — Amkgp 💬 15:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment:, Ian Walters (darts player), Tony Richardson (darts player), Liam Kelly (darts player) and Joe Davis (darts player) seems non-notable too. — Amkgp 💬 16:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Stuart Anderson fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything other than match results for him. Dougal18 (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet GNG, or WP:SPORTSPERSON. According to dartbase never got beyond last 128 in a PDC tour event, or 80 in BDO World Masters.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete From WP:SPORTSPERSON-"A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". Pretty much all existing sources about him are NOT independent of darts. Has definitely NOT won any significant honor in darts.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 20:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It's also worth mentioning that the page creator is currently going on a spree of creating articles about similiar non-notable darts players.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 20:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable dart player who has not won, or been in the finals of a major tournament. --John B123 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - unremarkable darts player, not even close to passing GNG Spiderone 10:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete non notable --Devokewater 11:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — The Earwig (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Zig (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough coverage in RS to establish notability. The theregister.co.uk and SD News citations are just mentions in passing. Infoworld gave it a page in 2016 but IMO that not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, Several WP:SPS and lack of WP:SIGCOV.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 20:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Kieran207, please ignore the crappy sources when assessing notability. Did you not find any WP:RELIABLE sources with WP:SIGCOV? ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, True, the project is recent and has not received a lot of coverage due to its volatility. Yet https://lwn.net/Articles/833400/ on LWN.net has not been written by the developer group and is quite recent. Not sure if this counts as significant, though it's certainly not low effort. --User:LuckyStarr 09:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Zig is an open-source project (We relax our criteria for these projects). When looking at GitHub it looks like a serious work (over 12K commits, 8K stars, and 300 contributors). After deep search (I checked all of the links provided by Google search engine after search using "Zig programming") I could get the next resources

• (1) https://fosdem.org/2021/schedule/track/zig_programming_language/ - Four lectures by different authors in FOSDEM - (I don't know if this is good for notability or not - Can we use videos as reliable references? I guess Yes)

• (2) https://www.gingerbill.org/article/2019/05/13/a-reply-to-the-road-to-zig/ - An article by Ginger Bill - Author of Odin programming language : https://odin-lang.org/ - (Maybe useful for notability)

• (3) https://itscomputersciencetime.netlify.app/zig-thoughts/ - Written by an author who published many technical articles in different topics through many years. (I know, We can say it's a blog article - Not Reliable)

• (4) https://sudonull.com/post/3683-Zig-programming-language

• I expected to find more/better references (After checking it in GitHub) but I can't find many of them.

• Kvng I am interested in your opinion. Charmk (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability established under WP:GNG by , and . ~Kvng (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Kvng Thanks, I vote to Keep too, Also this reference is useful. Charmk (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral: The above makes me doubt my original conclusion. I am going to wait to see if there are more comments, and then will most likely go with the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, LWN and Infoworld are reliable sources and have significant coverage - plenty of detail and context to be the basis of an article. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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 Gender neutrality in English. Creating a redirect, the content is available so the editors are free to merge whatever content they feel fit (not much content in the article). Tone 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

People who menstruate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NOTDIC as an article solely about the definition and use of what is essentially a noun, WP:NEO for being about a neologism rarely seen in reliable sources, and WP:GNG for lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources". Even the article's creator admits there isn't "much to expand this with".

Going over the sources in the current version:

• 1. Trivial definition from the open access megajournal PLOS One. Worth noting here that PubMed turns up 0 results for the phrase "people who menstruate", 1,294 for "menstruating women", and 14,663 for 'menstruation women' (no quotes).
• 2. Trivial mention from Radical Teacher, a journal which according to Scopus received 0 citations from 2016-2019 and is ranked as the 1,214th journal out of 1,254 in the field of Education.
• 3. Trivial mention from an unpublished preprint.
• 4. Trivial definition and use from another open access megajournal.
• 5. Trivial definition material and claim from a journal so obscure it is not recognized by Scopus, Scimago, or Google Scholar Metrics.
• 6. Trivial defintion from a book on "critical menstruation studies"; as far as I can tell, this field has almost no existence outside of this book.

Regarding J. K. Rowling, no, this was only a small part of the controversy; see Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people and sources therein. That is where material related to her belongs; it does not add to the case for this to be an article.

• 7. Blog post which adds nothing of substance. (and is also full of bizarre claims like "medical knowledge on biological sex is based on chattel slavery")
• 8. Passing mention in another obscure journal completely ignored by the indexing services mentioned above.
• 9. Trivial definitional and Rowling-related material from someone's dissertation.

What scraps have been pulled together from the far reaches of academia is not enough to support non-dictionary, non-redundant content on this phrase. Crossroads 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Added and renumbered because a source was added. Crossroads 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Crossroads 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Crossroads 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Crossroads 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Crossroads 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to Gender neutrality in English. When I started working on this I thought there'd be more but it's hard to string more than a few sentences about it. The term is new and seemingly gaining some traction but it may be the case of WP:TOOSOON indeed. Do ping me if anyone can find more in-depth coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's enough even for that. These are still not great sources. Even if we go by the only source that's somewhat reliable and about this phrase, I don't think a definition in a disclaimer from a PLOS One article is worth merging. And that destination article is about neutrality between men and women, as is the vast majority of the gender neutrality topic. This isn't worth cramming in there. Crossroads 07:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Crossroads, I think you dismiss the sources and extent of coverage too quickly. For example, the "book on "critical menstruation studies" you dismiss because of its title is nonetheless The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies' published by Springer Nature. It's a very well known and reputable series and publisher. And said book mentions this term quite a few times. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Also the searches don't cover menstruator which picks up a fair bit. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
        • The vast majority of those Google results are unreliable sources, which goes to show how obscure this neologism is. As for this book, it hardly uses the term; I found only a handful of results, which is very low for a 1,000+ page book entirely about menstruation. Crossroads 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Gender neutrality in English, per Piotrus. "People who menstruate", "people who are pregnant", etc., are fairly recent terms, arising out of gender neutrality, and somewhat controversial, provoking strong reactions from some. Coverage will only increase and a standalone article may be merited at some point, but for now, certainly appropriate for coverage in Gender neutrality in English. Bastun 09:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the idea that coverage will increase, WP:CRYSTAL applies. It does indeed get strong negative reactions, so increase is by no means a given. On that note, per WP:NEO, Knowledge is not to play a part in increasing the visibility of neologisms. Crossroads 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Gender neutrality in English, i.e. redirect this page to that one and move (probably in condensed form) any relevant, reliable-secondary-source-supported content from this entry to that one. The term seems to merit a mention in that article but not to be notable enough for a standalone article at this time. -sche (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the idea that this should be merged not into "Gender neutrality in English" but into ~"Gender neutrality in English, but trans", I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that replacing "women who menstruate" with "people who menstruate" is somehow a fundamentally different category of phenomenon to be handled in a totally different article than earlier replacements of "chairman" with "chair", nor (to look at some of the other terms suggested as candidates to be put in such a fork) that proposals like "fronthole" are somehow fundamentally different from earlier, non-trans-related, equally-uncommon feminist proposals like using "germinal" instead of "seminal" ("relating to semen") to mean "influential". ("Womxn", mentioned below, is exactly the same kind of thing as "womyn", and neither is gender-neutral.) -sche (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge somewhere, but probably not Gender neutrality in English - somewhere more trans-related. Btw I have changed the blatently wrong initial definition, which contradicted all 3 refs given (from "do not" to "may not")! Actually there might be more to say on this term, which is a double-edged sword that can be used either to include or exclude, or I suppose both. Isn't there a trans project who can be pinged? Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Johnbod, We have the sexuality and gender delsort, already included. I don't think there is anything more specific, but if someone would like to create an LGBT-specific one, it's a free wiki... usually :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, much of what is under the sexuality and gender delsort covers LGBT topics and that's how people use it. Crossroads 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge - This should be merged into a relevant article. I don't think this is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. --CanadianToast (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify to something like Draft:Trans-inclusive language and write an omnibus article about proposed language reforms and their reception within and without the transgender community. (Just as person-first language and euphemisms like differently abled have been criticised by some of the people they were intended to benefit, so also terms like womxn and front hole have received mixed reactions from transgender people.) gnu57 20:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge into a trans-related article. This relatively recent trans-related gender identity terminology may be circulating within gender-speak influencer circles and Gen Y social media, but not in the general core Anglosphere and other English-speaking populations. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:NOT#ADVOACY, WP:NOTDICT. If there's a trans-related article at which this phrase can be mentioned, and it can be reliably sourced as being in common enough usage and with enough independent, reliable sourcing material about it to write not-just-dictionary-definition (i.e., actually encyclopedic) material about it, then fine, but that doesn't require a merge. There's nothing particularly special about the trivial amount of content presently in the page. If someone thinks otherwise, they can always WP:REFUND the page to their draftspace and merge from it, if/when there's a good merge target. I have no objection to draftifying, to serve as the first entry in a "Trans-inclusive language", or "Glossary of trans-related terms", or whatever it might be titled. But again, this is a trivial amount of content, and it need not be kept if there's not going to be a concerted effort to produce such an article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep/merge The phrase should not just be viewed through the narrow prism of recent controversy. We have substantial pages such as Culture and menstruation which provide a broader historical and cultural context and the reader might be looking for such. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per SMCandlish, or as a second choice merge to some appropriate article, per other merge recommendations above. I don't have a specific target in mind yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Gender neutrality in English, per the other merge arguments above. I dispute that it belongs somewhere "more trans-related," as the definition of gender neutral language given in Gender neutrality in English is "language that minimizes assumptions about the social gender or biological sex of people referred to in speech or writing." That is exactly what the term "people who menstruate" does. Gender neutrality in English could do with some reorganization, perhaps adding a section like "Examples of gender neutral terms," but in any case the information in People who menstruate fits neatly into the scope of that article. Aerin17 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely "people who menstruate" maximizes biological sex, while ignoring social gender entirely. That's rather the point of it, isn't it? Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the quote of the lead of that article shows why it cannot be the destination. Some matters are inherently sex-specific and this is one of them. Crossroads 05:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The quote says "social gender or biological sex." There's a distinction between gender and sex. The term "people who menstruate" is used to refer to people of all genders, just like the other terms in that article, even if it's specific to people who were assigned female at birth. Aerin17 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to a trans-related place. The term "people who menstruate" is not mainstream enough for its own article. And if merged, it's better to be merged into a transgender related article than into Gender neutrality in English, because the usage of this term is virtually always directly or indirectly trans-related. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:6975 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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) 13:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

In effect a duplicate page to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53, created by an editor in the teeth of presently ongoing RfCs at the original article, as a WP:POVFORK. Should be swiftly deleted (and the creator should be made to understand that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable). Smerus (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Is there a speedy category for this? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53, for obvious reasons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• If so obvious, why did you create it? And by merging it as it stands, you sidestep the ongoing RfC disucssions, which is not acceptable.--Smerus (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I created the discography article at a point in time when *obviously* there was not a single editor objecting against a separate discography article for Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, that is, nor at Knowledge talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions, nor at Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53#RfC: Inclusion criteria for recordings list (nor at any other part of that talk page) – on the contrary, the sentiment, expressed by among others Smerus at the project page, was that once over 15 recordings, the discography should be split to a separate page (the discography list of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde currently has 30 recordings). So I was following advice of my colleagues, and initiated the separate discography article. Personally, I do think that a table of 30 recordings at the Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 article is not excessive, so, if it depended on me, I would merge the full table of recordings (and surrounding text) back to that article ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify. There is an ongoing RfC about inclusion criteria of the embedded list in the parent article. Since we're having an RfC, it's better not to radically cut down or extend the list there, but there is a chance of it resulting in a short embedded list and a link to this more expansive one. It would be beneficial for this content to be editable for those 30 days. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and tidy up both this, and the main article accordingly depending on RfCs there (see Finnuerstop above). I am generally in favour of separate discographies where there are more than ten or so entries, our content guidelines prefer flowing text to lists or tables in non-list articles.

  I have "accepted" the updates from Francis which move in the direction of this article being just a discography, since this will help newcomers to this AfD discuss the disposition of the article as it should appear if kept. As far as I am concerned further updates in that direction will be welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Completed the previous by now trimming the "sources" list too (according to the current references). Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete These discographies tend to be clunky and are certainly unencyclopedic. Often the recordings included therein are thrown in willy-nilly, making mention of recordings not available commercially and therefore difficult, if not impossible to obtain. No need to turn Knowledge into the old Schwann Opus catalog anyway. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • See Knowledge talk:WikiProject Classical music#"Recordings" vs. "discography". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I read it and respect your opinion, but still disagree. My opinion remains the same: in favor of deletion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I would say/prefer merge, but frankly given the entrenched positions on recordings amongst some editors, I have no doubt it would just result in more argument. If there was any real way of making a merge work without disruption I would say do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – how about "keep for now and decide about merge later"? "Later" meaning: after conclusion of the "discography" RfC at the parent article's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete clearly seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK and the fact people cannot agree on its contents is no reason for a fork. If BWV 53 was a long article then there might be a case for a WP:SPINOFF but BWV 53 relatively short so that argument is weaker. If there is a need to merge some of the content back in once the RFC has concluded the article could be userfied. --Salix alba (talk): 12:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy, clearly unnecessary content fork. —Kusma (t·c) 19:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Salix alba and Smerus. Aza24 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Smerus, Salix alba, Aza24 and others. As created, this is forked content for an alternative version of BWV 57. Although it advertises itself as a discography, the RfC on recordings of BWV 53 is still ongoing. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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. bibliomaniac15 06:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonas Alster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Certainly accomplished, but doesn't meet WP:GNG, and I can see nowhere where he passes any of the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR. The response on the article talk page when the prod was removed is interesting. Onel5969 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: It's indeed an interesting response, in that it demonstrates how throwing unexplained terms at newcomers can be deeply unintuitive. If half the claims here are accurate, this guy should sail past NPROF. I would not expect particularly mainstream coverage from someone in this man's position, and that would be exactly why the SNG exists in this case. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. He does have some highly cited papers, which seem to be published under "J Alster". He however appears to typically be middle author on a papers with a large number of coauthors, but it is hard to separate this J Alster from others. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning delete. I have the same reservations as Russ Woodroofe regarding relative authorship contributions. This field of physics also gets high citations--many of his publications are multi-collaborator measurements of nucleon form factors, which then get cited by every experimental and theoretical paper that touches on (e.g.) proton internal structure (at least until someone measures a slightly larger (e.g.) Q2 range). Perks of having access to an accelerator, I guess. I've compiled the Scopus values for total citations, total publications, and h-index for Dr. Alster and 97 coauthors of his 5ish most cited papers. Citations: median: 8370, average: 15972, Alster: 3698. Publications: med: 136, avg: 265, A: 98. h-index: med: 46, avg: 49, A: 36. From these data I would say he is a pretty run-of-the-mill physicist for effective field theory, and so wouldn't meet PROF C1 criteria. I certainly wouldn't say the measurements provide important breakthroughs in QCD understanding. I don't know if any of the positions he's held would bring up the slack in the other PROF categories, though. JoelleJay (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Some of the complaints about my citation analysis are valid, for example the issues with analyzing the top-cited works (which might be more likely to have older and more prominent coauthors). However, most of the alternative methods of evaluating C1 are much less appropriate as they assume uniform citation standards across the sciences, which inflates the importance of high-citation fields and diminishes that of low-citation fields. See, for example, the issues highlighted in this AfD by myself and others regarding interpreting cite counts and h-indices and the necessity of contextualizing metrics with within-field comparisons. Inasmuch as citation analysis can be used for C1 assessment--and it seems it is the #1 method here--the reliability of generalizing to every field one's personal, intuitive preconception of what constitutes "high citation number" will inevitably have much worse predictive value (re: predicting a subdiscipline's average citation count) the further one gets from one's specialty. So, I try to get a feel for a subject's subdiscipline by looking at their coauthors' metrics, and when there aren't many coauthors, I look at coauthors-of-coauthors. This provides the most practical control group for an academic's body of work--you don't have to blindly estimate impact by artificially reconstructing what constitutes a person's "field", which is usually difficult to nail down and even more difficult to make adequate comparisons within it; you just have to look up a sufficient number of coauthors across a sufficient range of time and article prominence. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm interested by the talk page comment that an invited review in Physics Reports on your own work is a major honour. I think that's likely to be true (it is true of certain Annual Reviews in my fields), but it doesn't fit well into our models of significance. Perhaps one of the physicists editing here could comment? The article seems to have been written by academics who know the subject is notable, and therefore don't bother to try to demonstrate it according to our (to them I suspect ridiculous) rules. The top Google Scholar citations (somewhat confused by what looks to be another J Alster), 594,491,379,216,203, seem to me enough to meet WP:PROF, even though I agree the water is muddied by some multi-author papers in there. Taking another approach, and looking at the papers the article author(s) have highlighted where Alster is the first/second author, there are some high citations here: 216, 86 and three others around 50, although others are lower (or don't actually have Alster as 1st/2nd author, at least with the limited information I'm getting from the online abstracts; it seems possible Alster was leading one team of researchers, but the authors are listed by institution: without seeing the actual publications, which are paywalled, one can't tell). Per comments elsewhere and on JoelleJay's talk page, I fear their method of citation analysis is systematically flawed. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Scopus reports citation highs of 315, 265, 186, 164, and 103 (none first author). Dividing the total citations by publication number for him and his 97 coauthors shows an average of 71 and median of 59 citations per paper and Dr. Alster at 34. This shouldn't be used as a major criterion to assess notability of course, but it does demonstrate how much citation goes on in this field. Another important aspect to note is that often (but def not always) in physical sciences authors are listed alphabetically, so you have to make sure the "first-author" refs actually use weighted contribution since he will very often end up alphabetically first. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The citability in GScholar is sufficiently impressive. His faculty profile page also lists a couple of prizes, Batsheva Rothschild prize, 1970 and Helena and Philip Spitzer Award, Israel Science Foundation, 1996. They seem to be from mostly pre-online era (and probably one would have to search in Hebrew anyway), but I am inclined to AGF this info. I think there is enough here for a pass of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's a high-citation field but the citation numbers from Nsk92's search look good enough for me. (I had previously looked for him as author with spelled-out first name and didn't find anything highly cited that way.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. There's a good number of citations which justifies the creation of the article. Looks fine to me. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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 per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale has not been advanced. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America 09:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Aapki Nazron Ne Samjha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• ChunnuBhai, you need to justify why it should be deleted, see WP:AFDHOWTO CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Tone 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

This article has been deleted a couple of times, and here it is again. There might be a possible redirect per WP:ATD-R, but otherwise I think we need to have a proper discussion about this. Ritchie333 12:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep In response to proposal for deletion re: sources, I have added references to The Times, The FT, Drapers, and other British media. Happy to discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirsaan.jatt (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC) — Kirsaan.jatt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Only the Drapers article mentions him at all. We need more than one source to show notability. Spiderone 15:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Follows from point 3 of WP:BIO, ie, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." I think there is a strong argument that Thind qualifies for this under impact / contributions to UK fashion. User:Kirsaan.jatt 15;09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Drapers puts him in the young rising stars category, not all the people on list qualify, but he is also the founder & owner of the company, worth £25 million according to The Sunday Times. Seems difficult to me to say he isn't notable. Reference: https://www.drapersonline.com/people/drapers-30-under-30-2021-aman-thind-ceo-missfiga Wiki-drapers (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)(talk

That says 'Nitin Passi' Spiderone 15:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello user:spiderone Aplogies for the wrong Refference Link, this has been changed. Wiki-drapers (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's just the Drapers article again. He doesn't get mentioned in any other news source. Spiderone 15:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a 30 under 30 "rising" anything is generally a sign the person is not yet notable, just that they may become notable in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - apart from an article in Drapers, which Wiki-drapers is continually referring to, there is no other reliable source giving this guy coverage so he clearly fails WP:GNG. Searches of "Aman Singh Thind" and "Aman Thind" come up with nothing useful. Spiderone 18:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Spiderone Please see 2 Articles just from drapers attached below. Drapers is a reputable source and the links as below. (It also has it’s own Wiki article page)

https://www.drapersonline.com/people/drapers-30-under-30-2021-aman-thind-ceo-missfiga https://www.drapersonline.com/people/life-in-the-fast-lane-with-missfiga

• Delete - Hinges on the Draper ref. Little to no other third party coverage. -KH-1 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep In terms of notability, this individual is certainly ranked in the upper echelons of recent influential people on the UK fashion scene. There are several articles which also seem to be locked (need to purchase a subscription) to view. All in all seems worth the article, with lots of coverage.User:JessiekLCFC 00:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)— JessiekLCFC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete This article has been subject to the edits of sockpuppets in the past (Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-drapers/Archive). Liz 03:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(Not casting a double vote here)I certainly think the individual falls in the same category as Tarak Ramzan Umar Kamani All British owners or CEO’s of fashion retail companies. Most articles will be on fashion related media such as Drapers or Business Inside. I think there is a line of notability especially with the Thind’s awards, achievements. Even though they seem to be lessened in this discussion page, ranking in top 30 of the UK’s most influential & top rising stars does show credibility. comment added by User:Kirsaan.jatt

• Delete There is no news article about the subject at the moment, fails WP:GNG. Mjbmr (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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 games on I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue#Sound Charades. No independently notable, redirecting to List_of_games_on_I'm_Sorry_I_Haven't_a_Clue, where it is mentioned. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sound Charades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can find no evidence to suggest this topic is independently notable of the radio show it appears on. The lack of any references is a strong clue to the fact this is original research and fan generated content which is unlikely to ever be sourced or verifiable. ℕ ℱ 09:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong delete unsourced from 2008. -Cupper52 10:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. It's not notable enough for it's own article and seems to be mostly original research. Suonii180 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Berowra FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable. Poorly sourced, and search finds nothing beyond the usual social media sites and listings etc. (NB: The club appears to be neighbourhood amateur one, playing in a local league only.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTY. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY. Deus et lex (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Tone 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Randy Whipple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. The only notability claim here is that he's had acting roles, and the only source is his own self-published website about himself as a real estate agent after quitting acting. As always, however, actors are not given an automatic free notability pass just because acting roles have been had -- the notability test does not hinge on listing roles, but on showing some evidence that some of his roles got him coverage in the media. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• delete this is one in a series of 20+ articles created by 4 SPAs that contains trivia about minor actors and is basically a republication of imdb. CUPIDICAE💕 19:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Knowledge is not IMDB. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Daniel (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Cor Scorpii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not quite met WP:NBAND. One album on a small label and one album on a somewhat bigger label without a Knowledge article. WP:NOTINHERITED from former band Windir. Not really any prolific festival appearances. Geschichte (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep well sourced. –Cupper52 14:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• The sourcing is actually crappy: corscorpii.mysites.nl, metal1.info, corscorpii.net, lordsofmetal.nl, metalunderground.com, corscorpii.net, reflectionsofdarkness.com. It's ridiculous, actually. Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: per Cupper52 --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• The claim of good sourcing is blatantly false. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't seem to meet any criteria in WP:BAND. If I am wrong let me know and I may update my vote. Metal Hammer is a notable publication, the rest are not. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The coverage of Cor Scorpii in Metal Hammer () and NRK () cited in the article is from reputable sources and cannot be dismissed as insignificant or unreliable. (Note that in the NRK article, the main topic is one of the band members, but it has significant coverage of the band itself - WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") Adumbrativus (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained, and that this company meets notability guidelines. North America 09:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

NCH Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

promotional and non notable. Half the refs are mere notices, others are short mentions in books or general articles (like the NYT). the rest are non authoritative brief reviews (like PC magazine). DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 13:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove this page. Please cite specifics regarding alleged 'undisclosed paid interests.' That contention seems spurious. NCH long-standing pages merely contain factual product info that no one need pay to outline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosnafone (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC) — Krosnafone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It would be easy to fix if it could be referenced from a reputable source, rather than replying with bluster.--Grahame (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's possible its program VideoPad is notable, but that does not mean that the firm necessarily is. DGG ( talk ) 10:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Keep. Updated position: On review of Cunard's contribution to this discussion I believe the page satifies GNG. (My previous comments just for completeness: I've just seen that this page has once already survived an AfD: the arguments in that discussion to keep do seem compelling. Looking at it afresh, the issue here is whether the subject meets WP:NCORP: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I could not find any significant IRSS via Google; nor via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (which is deeper and wider than Google); nor via a search of Australia's Trove newspaper archives. Having said that, Unscintillating's previous argument to keep the page has weight: "the topic has been in business since 1993, which is almost pre-internet, which shows great longevity"; as does Cunard's: "There is sufficient coverage ". Certainly IRS do NOT need to be live on the internet. While it seems NCH Software is a significant company--and as an inclusionist I have a history of attempting to save articles where possible-- based on my research it fails WP:NCORP. I would also note that objection above by Krosnafone is spurious; and his account history looks far from bonafide--including this objection he posted directly on the page. Cabrils (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment The previous afd was in 2014. This is now 7 years later, and standards have increased for this type of articles. That doesn't mean we should start revaluating everything, but perhaps it does mean we should start re-evaluating the borderline. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with this position, seems sensible to me. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the ping, Cabrils (talk · contribs). Also pinging the only other Knowledge:Articles for deletion/NCH Software participant who has been active in the last year: Mrjulesd (talk · contribs).

  Cabrils, would you review the two sources I posted below? Thanks,

  Cunard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Have done and am persuaded, now voting to keep the page. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. May, Scott (2011-06-28). "NCH Software offers fantastic, affordable apps". Columbia Daily Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-14. Retrieved 2021-02-14.

     The article includes analysis of NCH Software: "Unlike many publishers that charge high prices for all-in-one suites that do more than you probably need, NCH Software takes a modular approach, designing smaller apps that do specific tasks, usually for a lot less money. It’s simply a smarter way to work."

     The article discusses NCH Software's history and products and the author intersperses his commentary throughout the article.

  2. Fernandez, Edgardo (2014-07-25). "NCH Software: Los mejores desarrolladores de herramientas" . NeoTeo. ABC. Archived from the original on 2014-09-30. Retrieved 2014-09-30.

     This article begins with the following paragraphs:

     En esta nueva sección hablaremos de las mejores empresas de desarrollo de aplicaciones, centrándonos en sus servicios no comerciales. En este estreno hablaremos de NCH Software una empresa que desde Canberra nos ha ofrecido muy buenas aplicaciones.

     Destacaremos sus herramientas más populares, su aplicación destacable y por supuesto, hablaremos un poco de la historia de la compañía.

     La Historia de NCH Software

     NCH Software fue fundada en el año 1993 en Canberra, Australia y en el año 2008 abre su oficina en Colorado Estados Unidos de Norte América.

     The article then discusses four of NCH Software's products: WavePad, Prism, Express Invoice, and Zulu.

     NeoTeo is published by the Spanish newspaper ABC. A NeoTeo article was republished at http://www.abc.es/20120202/tecnologia/abci-juegos-machine-201202020939.html and the ABC.es logo is on each page of NeoTeo.

     According to https://www.facebook.com/NeoTeo/info, "NeoTeo es una revista online sobre Tecnología" (NeoTeo is an online magazine about technology).

     See more articles from journalist Edgardo Fernandez at http://www.neoteo.com/author/edgardo-fernandez/.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow NCH Software to pass Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• NCH Software passes Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says:

  The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.

  Columbia Daily Tribune and ABC's NeoTeo both have profiled the company in discussing its history and its products.

  Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:

  The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

  NCH Software is based in Canberra in Australia. It received significant coverage in international sources in an American source (Columbia Daily Tribune) and a Spanish source (ABC's NeoTeo).

  Cunard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I always love it when USER:CUNARD posts these detailed evaluations, helps save lots of time in review. I agree with his keep arguments. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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. There is consensus that the subject meets notability guidelines. If the subject would like to have their article deleted or changed, they are welcome to avail themselves of the options listed here. (non-admin closure) gobonobo 10:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Gurmukh (yoga teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There was a misplaced deletion request on the page claiming to be from the subject and the edit summary had contact details (deleted) but I'm bringing it here for evaluation. This is part of a large walled garden created around 3HO but a cursory look at the refs looks like they check out. I'm bringing here for evaluation. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep there is plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable publications. Example, example. Possibly (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets notability for WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES --Whiteguru (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. Gurmuhk is very well known in the yoga realm (and outside of 3HO). There is a lot of sustained coverage in reliable sources such as: L.A. Times, Yoga International, Yoga Journal, L.A. Magazine, New York Times, etc. It's all in the article. Netherzone (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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 14:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Watafuk?! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable and non-charting track, with no significant media coverage. aNode (discuss) 09:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - As a collaboration of two otherwise notable rappers, but not from an album, there is no good place to redirect. Therefore the song article could stand alone if the song is notable in its own right, but it is not. It was mentioned briefly at a few promotional sites plus some social media chatter, but it does not have the significant and reliable coverage needed to pass WP:NSONG. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete -- a song by somewhat notable rappers, but no coverage could be found. No appropriate redirect target as it is not from an album; redirect to either of the artists' article is not a good choice. HĐ (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The Russian article at ru:watafuk?!#Чарты (that seemingly nobody seems to have bothered to look at, or at least mention here) has a long table entitled charts, suggested the sort did chart in many places, and ranked as high as #2. Assuming the cited charts/sources are significant/reliable, this should be enough for this to meet WP:NMUSIC, no? Do ping me if there are any replies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: None of the charts at the Russian Knowledge satisfy chart requirements (WP:BADCHARTS discourages Apple Music and Spotify charts, because they are not record charts). HĐ (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• If you happen to understand Russian, could you also remove the Apple Music/Genius/Spotify charts at the Russian Knowledge? HĐ (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Most of the charts are WP:BADCHARTS. I have no information about Deezer and Genius (website)'s notability and seems like we have this article for most of the charts. Also, there are lots of WP:RS sources in Russian, however, the coverage is only about that the "single is out". Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Does not meet WP:NMUSIC which applies to rappers. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Ritchie333 10:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Narayanganj Club Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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