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. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The Yellow Melodies (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 without a single source, that appears to be written by the lead singer of the band (and is written like an advertisement for that matter) so a clear WP:COI issue here. Survived speedy deletion because creator removed tag in 2013 with a claim that the band were signed to Darla (which there is no source for available), has somehow survived since. I can find no significant relevant coverage for this band, nor any indication they pass WP:MUSIC at all. ser! (chat to me). 22:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ser! (chat to me). 22:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ser! (chat to me). 22:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I am the editor who added the cleanup-rewrite template last November. It is clear that the lead singer is the only person who really cares about this band, and they are also evidently only contributing to Knowledge as a medium for self-advertisement. A speedy deletion was also declined in 2010, as Rafa had done "a great deal of work" to the article, however a quick look at the current state of the history section may tell you that the article fails to comply with the standards of Knowledge, and that there are no sources listed anywhere. As such I support a deletion. Cilidus (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SOAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acousmana (talk • contribs) 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Cilidus comments above. No comments necessary beyond those. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - It must be noted that they have a fairly long biography at AllMusic , and one album review there too. However the bio article is largely a laundry list of members joining and leaving. Usually, that would help a band reach the notability rules here, but I can find no other reliable media coverage of this band despite their long history and many albums. Perhaps they had a Spanish equivalent of their name that was used in their country, but for our purposes here they are largely invisible beyond the usual streaming and retail sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 04:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment - in terms of Allmusic as a means of establishing notability, relevant discussion relating to this on WP:RSN at the moment. Acousmana (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Yellow Melodies are an active indiepop band from Spain that are releasing records nowadays on international labels such as The Beautiful Music (Canada), Old Bad Habits (Greece) or Spanish labels, and they're even releasing more records abroad than in their own country. They're releasing a new EP called "Sunshine Pop Ep3" in late March 2021, that's why I consider they should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaskam (talk • contribs) 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment - The person above has the same name as the band's leader (see WP:DUCK), created the article back in 2010 and wrote most of the text. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:46, 2 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Foresight Design Initiative (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 significant coverage per WP:ORG. The fourth reference has nothing to do with the organization. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - The sourcing in the article fails to establish notability. AS of the nomination, the sourcing is (1) event announcement, (2) regurgitated event announcement, (3) dead link to a web fi=orum whoch would be an unreliable source, (4) Some news story that was hosted on the organisation's site but I have no clue why it in the article. My own search turns up nothing but a few events where the president of teh org is speaking. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 5 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Advanced Aerospace Vehicle (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:POVFORK of UFO. A not-quite-coherent synthesis that emphasizes "truly unexplained" and "off world" interpretations of the concept that are based on the term being used in widely varying and unrelated contexts. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Indiscriminate melange of fairly common words that have been used to mean a variety of things. I'd call it synthesis, except that it's not really coherent enough to qualify. XOR'easter (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Core of this is a more-sympathetic POV fork of UFO. The citations are a grab bag of whatever has used the words 'Advanced Aerospace Vehicle' and are not about a singular topic. - MrOllie (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• C'mon Delete It This is the work of an over-enthusiastic editor who seems to be righting great wrongs here at the 'pedia. This is not a topic found in the literature. Publish this outside of Knowledge and create some reliable sources which indicate it is a separate topic, then come back. jps (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Largely incoherent content fork. Dimadick (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or merge anything worth it in Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program that seems to be the main article about this topic. —PaleoNeonate – 07:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite. A search on scholar.google.com indicates it is a legitimate mainstream aerospace term going back to at least the 1960s. The problem is that the article as written gives it usage that it does not deserve. I suggest it be cleaned up to remove the UFO stuff and the term be added to Knowledge's Glossary of aerospace engineering. Also, tag it with {{cleanup AfD}} ("Use this tag where an AFD discussion closes with a consensus of "keep and cleanup."). Then come back in six months for another look. 5Q5| 14:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Should the article be deleted in its current form, to the editor who created it, please read WP:RADP before republishing. 5Q5| 15:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

None of that literature seems to indicate that the term has a specific, established meaning, though. It's just the next-generation technology, whatever that might be at the time. Making an article based on the juxtaposition of common nouns and adjectives seems like inventing a definite term when there isn't one. And even if there were some NASA glossary with a bullet point that fixed an official meaning for "Advanced Aerospace Vehicle" (more specific than "vehicle of the future!"), I think WP:TNT would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Not only is the article a content fork, "Advanced Aerospace Vehicle" seems less a specific topic of study than an eye-grabbing, non-specific phrase. I have no comment about whether, as an editor claims above, the term is "legitimate" in mainstream professional literature, but I do know the adjective "advanced" is a trope in science and engineering. How many labs or institutes do not have that subjective word somewhere in their mission statement, if not their name? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete:' XOR'easter nailed it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per XOR’easter, and what has been posted by MrOllie on the article talk page: “What you've done in this page is collected a bunch of citations that happen to use these words, but are about separate concepts entirely. They don't actually support the existence of this article.” There’s no coherent topic here, just what looks to be an attempt to justify the existence of a particular phenomenon by reference to the use of the same terminology to mean something else. Brunton (talk) 11:35, 1 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Fear on Wheels (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, unsourced book that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK that has been tagged as having notability concerns and being unreferenced for six years. I first redirect this book back to The Hardy Boys in August 2019, but it was recently recreated without prejudice for an AFD at a discussion at Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Fear on wheels. Aspects (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have done a WP:Before and found no SIGCOV on web. I checked other Hardy Boys books on List of The Hardy Boys books to see if any other books might have refs that could be carried over, but a large number of the other books have 1 ref only! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete/redirect to the main list of the series books. It's pretty rare for an individual book in a series that pumps out as many volumes as this one to be individually notable. This is not an exception to that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:05, 1 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 redirect to Happiness Ltd.. Daniel (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Let Me In (Hot Hot Heat song) (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 single by an obscure band. Tagged since 2010.

PROD removed due to "there's enough here (national chart, notable game) that I can see a deletion debate going either way".

However, the notability tag was not removed, so let's decide once and for all if this is notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Happiness Ltd.. KidAd • SPEAK 21:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Happiness Ltd. Obscure band? Three top 40 singles and two top 40 albums in the UK, they were pretty popular there for a few years. But yes, I agree this single isn't notable... positions below 100 in the UK chart are not available to the general public, they are just for industry subscribers, and let's be honest, no. 138 isn't much of an indication of notability. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. BigDom (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to album. To be fair, nominator is definitely wrong to label the band as "obscure" — it's admittedly now been quite a while since their heyday, but they were literally one of the biggest and most famous rock bands around in their prime. That said, this song doesn't date from their prime, and it doesn't have any notability claim that's "inherently" notable per WP:NSONGS — just because a notable band released it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt it from having to have a lot more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 02:13, 1 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. Daniel (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Metascience (journal) (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 was not about to find significant independent coverage. Journal has an impact factor of .1. May not be notable. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I found two in-depth published reviews in unrelated journals, also establishing its earlier history back to 1984. I think it passes WP:GNG. As for the impact factor, I think that that's almost completely irrelevant. Impact factors tell you something about the spikiness of citations to recent papers in journals for fast-moving journal-based fields. They tell you almost nothing about the typical or median or long-term citations of papers in the same journals. And in this case it's a journal for book reviews in the humanities. Who cites book reviews? That's missing the point of the journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with David Eppstein. The index factor also is different dependent on the site you use - 2 on some sites 0.149 on others.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The journal has no impact factor, as it isn't indexed in any Clarivate database. However, it's indexed by Scopus and we generally take that to satisfy NJournals. The two in-depth reviews added to the article by David show that it even passes GNG (quite rare for an academic journal). The article can be expanded according to the tips given in our journal article writing guide. --Randykitty (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep thank you for the additional sources. Agreed. Basicly it passes WP:GNG. --Kemalcan (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep For a journal of this type and in this field, impact factor is a meaningless number. High, low, who cares? Here, we have scholarly sources writing about it, and it's indexed in a selective database. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 28 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) 19:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Robert Salerno (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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, WP:PRODUCER. Notability tag for more that 10 years. scope_creep 20:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable person in the film industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 4 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Potentially notable, senior physician, but low h-index and low cite. Fails WP:NACADEMIC scope_creep 20:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The awards he has received do not appear notable or even particularly competitive. Looking at his 20 most recent papers and comparing him with the 71 coauthors with 10 or more publications, I would say he does not meet NPROF C1 from citation metrics either: Total cites: average: 4452, median: 1245, Kesavadev: 356. Total pubs: avg: 130, med: 69, K: 49. h-index: avg: 21, med: 14, K: 11. Highest citation: avg: 633, med: 250, K: 46.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelleJay (talk • contribs)
• Delete, in terms of the level of promotional content, this page is well into TNT territorry, perhaps G11. The various hyberbolic achievement claims dont jibe with the very modest (particularly for the field) h-index of 16 with the top cite of 70. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• keep: meets gng and basic, article sounds very promotional needs a clean up. as per wp:atd, if article can be edited it should be done rather then deleting it. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:TNT. Even assumung the subject is notable, the current version is unsalvageable, unless Hercules is available. Nsk92 (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question. Does the fellowship with the Royal College of Physicians (or any of the other fellowships listed) suffice for WP:NPROF C3? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd say, depends. These are elected postions; its considered a prestigious position, but when I was doing the James Spence Medal series of articles, I noticed a lot physicians were getting deleted, even though they were FRCP or had some other listing. To become notable within the profession, to make it into the books, they had to have invented some surgical procedure, or advanced research in some way. I think probably, they're is a lot of fellows, but unless they advance the industry, they're not particularly notable. When you look at e.g. Plarr's Lives of the Fellows, and the other archive (the name escapes me), if each one of them had another obit, they would all be notable, but quite a number, don't have that. I think that is the reason for deletion. scope_creep 17:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• We really need to identify why there is an article, that is the core of it. scope_creep 17:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• I don't know what it is. scope_creep 17:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment while the page is a promotional eye sore, this publication might meet criteria one of WP:NACADEMIC. Other pubs are borderline. I'm unable to verify Royal * memberships( blame my mobile device if not lack of RS) Vikram 08:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately it has been only cited 8 times 2nd row, which is far too low to pass the notability threshold for academics. Having looked at it over the weekend, I've came to the conclusion that he is non-notable. I suspect that there might be an article a couple of decades up the road, assuming there is a couple of obits scope_creep 12:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. To quote from the explanatory notes in WP:PROF regarding WP:PROF#C1: The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. If the publication had been cited 800 times, there might have been something to talk about in terms of WP:PROF#C1, but not with just 8 citations. Nsk92 (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

In some domains, papers may not be cited too many times, if it is niche. In this case what stands is the reputation of the publication. Having done some work around paper reviews, I feel #citations may not be an absolute parameter to either accept or reject WP:PROF#C1. Having said that, I dont see any other parameter to support notability and would !vote delete. Vikram 10:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• comment does not pass WP:NPROF based on publications but after Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lisa Jones (scientist) we can hardly argue that we should keep Lisa Jones and delete this article. --hroest 14:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been looking at that. It is a complete double standard being applied on the Lisa Jones article, that completely breaks WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. scope_creep 16:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Weak delete per WP:TNT at the least. I don't see a pass of WP:NPROF C1 here -- possibly WP:TOOSOON. I'm uncertain about the case for C3, but since the RCP fellowship is not supported by a reliable source (and I didn't succeed in finding one), I don't think this forms a good keep argument for the article. Meanwhile, there is little from the current text of the article that would go into an eventual article on the subject. I certainly don't think that we should take a no-consensus close on another article (with particularly tart comments from the closing admin about poor keep arguments) as forming any kind of precedent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Citation record doesn't support WP:PROF#C1 and the article is too heavily promotional and padded for me to tell whether there might be anything else of actual notability hidden in it. WP:TNT and WP:CSD#G11 are also relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 6 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hoplon Infotainment (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 gaming company. Fails WP:ORG, WP:NCORP. scope_creep 20:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows as the only significant information, as well as a WP:PASSING/WP:RUNOFTHEMILL in . This does not meet WP:NCORP. IceWelder 16:21, 2 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 speedy keep under criterion 4, and there are enough arguments from banned editors here to make a consensus difficult if not impossible not to determine. There is no prejudice against speedy renomination if an editor in good standing wishes to renominate. Seraphimblade 06:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Lourdes Public School and Junior College, Kottayam (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 pass criteria set forward by WP:NSCHOOL. Not even a good reference. Bornfromashes (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2021 striking blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 18. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Lack of significant reliable references to justify the notability of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC) striking blocked sock/meatpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Written like an advertisement 27.61.53.70 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - this was up for AfD yesterday and was closed as speedy keep. Spiderone 12:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Note: Nominator blocked for socking. Blablubbs|talk 14:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep (1) because the speedy was closed as keep (2) A dearth of citations is not a reason for deletion : we require verifability not that it is verified by references; the excpetion is BLP, which this is not. In India English-medium schools are the gateway to well-paid employment, which might be a factor towards notability, but I take no view on notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable references to justify the notability of the subject. JaiMahadev (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC) striking another blocked sockpuppet of the original nominator, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Totally agree with the other delete voters. There's nothing sourcing wise to justify this being notable. The nominator being a sock is unfortunate, but really a separate issue to the purpose of AfDs IMO. So, I see now reason this can't still be evaluated on the articles merits or lack of them. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - the organisation does not appear to have ever been subject to significant coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Sources found do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and ultimately WP:NORG is not met. Spiderone 11:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Request Procedural Close: I agree withthe Delete !votes, but noms by socks should not be considered, doing so only encourages more socking. If an editor feels this is not notable, they should renominate and this close should not be considered.  // Timothy :: talk  16:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Timothy makes a good point. I have struck my vote. This was created by a prolific vandal and we should not be encouraging their behaviour. If this school is to be deleted, the discussion should be started by a good faith editor, not someone with a clear COI who has had multiple accounts blocked for promoting a rival school to this one. Spiderone 14:49, 6 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 delete. Spartaz 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

KBQS-LP (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 rarely send radio station articles to AfD, but I'm so dearly lost with this one I don't know where to start.

First, some facts:

• There is a KBQS-LP! It's licensed to Sacramento, not San Francisco, and it should be on 98.9. The technical parameters in the infobox are not real.
• It is related to San Francisco, in that the owner has tried to move it there. This real FCC exhibit reads like a rambling manifesto. Something about coverage issues.
• I cannot find information on what KBQS-LP has actually aired or indeed any coverage of this low-power station that passes the general notability guideline.

If it didn't have to do with a licensed radio station and documents that are real FCC exhibits but also not coherent, I might have tagged it for speedy deletion. As it is, even this topic editor is unsure what to make of it, but she is confident that the station fails the GNG and that this article is verging on patent nonsense. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per Sammi Brie. This is some Pepe Silvia wall-level crazy. –Fredddie™ 08:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: As per Sammi Brie. Incomplete articleTheDreamBoat (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: @TheDreamBoat: So what if it's dinky? Complete it, don't delete it. Americanfreedom (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: This does not exactly rise to the level of a hoax, but it certainly is not about an actually licensed radio station. The owner of the "station" in this article applied with the FCC for an FM Booster in San Francisco, but this application was dismissed, as were all of their other filings with the FCC. In this bizarre document, the person who applied for the booster in San Francisco said that they filed charges against the owner of the actually licensed station in Sacramento. Despite what the article and linked document claim, no assignment of license or transfer of control was ever filed with the FCC, and KBQS-LP officially remains owned by Sacramento Bicycle Kitchen, not Sky Earth Network. While this article was originally written about the actually licensed station, information about the station's status and history is so clouded that it would be impossible to write an article about the station with any degree of accuracy. Reliable sources just aren't there.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete First things first, the 98.9 allocation for San Francisco is held by KSOL. It's no wonder they got rejected to cover on that frequency.

Searching for their alleged 'sister station' KONB took me to this WIX site (WIX being a favorite haunt for TV/radio hoaxers here), which asks me to subscribe for $5/month to a TV service that doesn't exist, and somehow airs The Young & the Restless, Dr. Phil, Rachael Ray and Law & Order, which is likely news to KPIX-TV. Another link for their 'sister FM station' KONB-FM takes me to this bizarre podcast feed seemingly hosted by automated GoAnimate voices and random Fiverr'ed VOAs with commercials and audio stripped from an actual radio station. KXPD is a real station which isn't related to this in any way, of course, and then the last link I found was to the subject's YouTube channel, which is a mix of false TV promos, videos of a web browser trying to show this station is 'real', and other videos of the subject which I'm not going to comment on because I have no doctorate in anything and an overwhelming concern for their health overall. So this definitely isn't real at all, and AF, deletion is the only course here because if we tried to 'complete' this, it would be hosting a hoax here. Nate • (chatter) 23:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: I tried to make my way through this level of crazy and even I couldn't make sense of it. Everywhere I turn, Ms. Stein has her mitts in things and has muddied the waters so much, I can't even tell what's going on. Per Tdl1060, the station (according to FCC records), is owned by the Sacramento Bicycle Kitchen and not Sky Earth Network nor Ms. Stein. I can find no documentation where a sale has taken place between Sacramento Bicycle Kitchen and Stein. Per Sammi Brie, the station is, indeed, licensed to Sacramento and 98.9 and not San Francisco or 98.7. Now, an application was filed for the station to San Fran and to 98.7, but it was dismissed for reasons brought up by Mrschimpf (ie: KSOL). Finally, the station has been off the air since 3/19/2019, so technically, it's been silent for more than a year. While the FCC has allowed this, it is typically considered after 1 year a station is silent, the station is no longer on the air and relinquishes it's license under FCC rules.

Given all that and the mess that page is and the lack of viable, verifiable, reliable, sourceable information, I have to !vote delete here. When something, anything, can be added that can bring this back to even sub-stub status, I am more than happy to recreate the article myself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:59 on February 18, 2021 (UTC)

Neutral: After hearing from RecNet (who I trust) and making changes to the page (if it was going down, it was going down without the crap on it), I am changing my !vote to Neutral. I agree with the Keeps that RevDel of Hoax Edits is HIGHLY NECESSARY AND MUCH NEEDED if this page is kept. While, I would like to see more in the article about it's past broadcasts, what it did before it went off the air and even if this hack that Recnet spoke of was covered by Sacramento or DC media. Even if it was covered by RadioInsight, Scott Fybush, or RecNet themselves. I'll take it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:42 on February 21, 2021 (UTC)

I've worked with Michi on some off-wiki projects and am an extremely heavy user of FCCdata (few radio articles on stations extant after 1980 start without a visit there), but I am unfortunately not convinced that the coverage exists to justify the article—otherwise, I would have withdrawn the nomination with the decision to revert back to a stub. I searched high and low and came up with nothing to say what KBQS-LP even broadcast when it was activated. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The "hack" I speak of is nothing more than just being able to get the FRN (FCC Registration Number) password. This can be done by either (1) guessing an easy password, (2) knowing the answer to the security question - which for some FRN accounts is very easy or (3) contacting the FCC and pretending to be a board member of the station and getting the password reset. I can tell you that I have had discussions with the FCC Audio Division about "Kaylee" and the abuses they have done. I am not sure if/what the FCC has done (and if I did, I would not be at liberty to talk about it). Honestly, I don't want to see this brought up in trade publications because I don't want to give "Kaylee" any additional attention. This person has been doing this for years, even before the string of abusive filings on KBQS-LP. We have seen our share of original FM and TV CPs in the Bay Area originated from this person. The underlying non-profit, Sacramento Bicycle Kitchen has been closed due to COVID , but still, I am not sure of their involvement or whether they were a host organization (e.g. another group of people who approached them to license under their organization because SBK is more than 2 years old and would have qualified for the local presence preference point during the LPFM filing window. I know there's not much information about the station, however, I see my share of listings on Knowledge (LPFM and full-service) where the mere existence of the station warrants a page. KBQS-LP (and any other LPFM that is licensed or had their license cancelled) should be listed and preserved, even if only the bare technical and administrative information is available. Recnet (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)recnet

@Recnet: Please know, I am most-certainly not questioning whether you make any of this effort ot not. I was just curious if there had been media coverage. To be honest, I have never heard of such a thing and I thought it would be a little tougher (probably is now). Normally a government hack (ie: FCC) gets a TON of media coverage.

@Sammi Brie: Trust me, I know. RecNet is heavily used by a LOT of us here too, myself included. :) RecNet is used in place of CRTC (since it can't be searched) in Canada. Anyway, my plan was, even if it was deleted, I was going to recreate it with current and correct information, some information about past broadcasts and what was aired, and some information on the hack. Because, unfortunately, Recnet, we cover it all (as long as it's sourced), good or bad. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:38 on February 22, 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and semi-protect after the recent cleanup/restoration edit by Neutralhomer. This edit is pretty much the same content as the pre-vandalism edit from 13 August 2020. Since it is a silent station with no apparent notability beyond existence, I'm okay with soft-deletion, but I would like to see the vandalism edits revision-deleted as hoax-edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and add semi-protection. As the national regulatory advocate for the Low Power FM radio service, I am aware of the vandalism that is taking place and the person who is involved vandalizes other systems including those operated by the FCC and REC Networks (my organization). The person responsible for the vandalization has filed many applications on this LPFM station. Somehow or another, they were able to hack into or misrepresent themselves to the FCC to get information in order to make modifications. My personal attempts to reach the actual parties involved with Sacramento Bicycle Kitchen, the true licensee of this station, have been unsuccessful. This station is currently licensed and it is my understanding that the station has been silent, but it is hard to tell because of the many fake applications that have been filed by the person vandalizing the page. All LPFM stations (and organizations and individuals who support them) should be eligible for a Knowledge page. I would ask that any information about this station reflect only the information from the FCC as well as various reliable sources for LPFM information such as REC Networks, Common Frequency and Prometheus Radio Project. Recnet (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)recnet

• This AfD is rather complicated, so I figured I'd restate the situation for the benefit of editors. The current article is vastly different from how it stood when I nominated it for AfD. It is a sub-stub article with accurate information that could conceivably stand in most circumstances. I still cannot shake my concern about coverage or any reliable info on what this station actually aired; if I could, this nomination would have been withdrawn nearly two weeks ago. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Same here. I've weighed in my mind whether to strike my delete !vote, but many of my concerns do remain. As far as the FCC records are concerned, the article is accurate. However, the station was apparently on the air for a total of only four and a half months – over two separate periods, and what (if anything) the station aired over those periods is a mystery.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A pure hoax. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete and salt Article history is a mess and as written (and probably until a reporter writes up a long article about how outlandish these filings all are), I don't believe the station is notable as a silent station. Salting because I feel this will be recreated by the people who wrote the hoax parts. They already threatened legal action in edit summaries. --Michael Greiner 20:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Patent nonsense, and an extremely interesting rabbit hole I went down. With an absolute bizarre story, legal threats, attempts at doxxing other users, etc... Really not enough for article within any view I can see. Des Vallee (talk) 05:31, 7 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. Daniel (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

List of assassinated people from Turkey (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 should be deleted as there are no reliable sources and sometimes even no source. It is therefore not in agreement with WP: RS . JeanPetitquitiensunbalais (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 27. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, no valid argument for deletion has been presented. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP; we do not delete content for fixable problems. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list and is synergistic with Category:Assassinated Turkish people. It shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources as almost every entry already has an article. gobonobo 20:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so all the people who are cited with no sources should be deleted? And is a blog a reliable source? I don't think so. JeanPetitquitiensunbalais (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to the various Category:Lists of assassinations as appropriate and then redirect to List of assassinations. Going by the aforementioned category, nationality alone does not seem to be a standard parameter by which to list assassinations. This was of course not the intention when the article was created back in 2006, either: back then, the title was Laicist Turks who are murdered. It was moved to a variation of the current title later the same year with the comment A more neutral title which could also help this to be developed into a broader article. In the decade and a half that has passed since then, we have become more discerning about the scopes of the articles (including lists) we create and maintain. Back then, arbitrary scopes that had been "eyeballed" (so-to-speak) by editors without being supported by sources were tolerated/accepted to a much greater extent. We should really stop and think about which parameters we should and should not fork List of assassinations by, because the possibilities are virtually endless: there's motive, method, location (which is currently the main way we sort it, though I can't say I understand why), year, nationality of victim, nationality of perpetrator, age of victim, age of perpetrator, occupation of victim, occupation of perpetrator, time of year, and so on. So we end up with articles such as List of assassinations in Albania, List of assassinated serving ambassadors, List of assassinations by firearm, List of Israeli assassinations, and so on. We even have an article called List of Turkish diplomats assassinated by Armenian militant organisations whose scope overlaps with this list (and uses several parameters in conjunction to define the scope). So is the Turkish nationality of the victim a good and meaningful way to fork List of assassinations? Well no, I don't think so—though I am open to arguments to the contrary. So while it is true that the nominator has not presented any valid argument for deletion, this really isn't a good scope for a list article (and never has been) and we should merge the content to elsewhere. TompaDompa (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, not all categories require an article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The default assumption is that a category of this sort requires an article It is true that not all categories require a list artoc;e, but where a categoy is both very specific and a list can provide relevant information, they should. A list article provides context, a list provides nothing but links. anyone searching in this area, or trying to see the scope of it, would be much better served with a list like this.. The minimal context a list provides is dates, which is always helpful. In this instance., there's more, indicating the reason in terms of politics and history. The only advantage of a category over a lsit is that it's formed automatically, and this is of real value mainly for large amorphous categories. DGG ( talk ) 12:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, there's enough amount of information which is cited, and the category list is notable and non-trivial enough to create a list. If there's a problem, like some uncited materials, then these issues should be addressed on the article talk page and appropriate noticeboards (like portal talk pages), not in an AfD. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:53, 4 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. Daniel (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Mad Love (JoJo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable per WP:NSONGS. The majority of the composition section is taken from the album booklet and is a rehash of the credits and personnel section while much of the rest of coverage is inherited from the album. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep There are reviews from Billboard, MTV News, Entertainment Weekly, and more cited in the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The sources from Billboard and MTV are independent of album reviews. It does have a sense of reliability. HĐ (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The sources from Billboard, MTV, EW and Idolator are independent of album review and show notability. It does have a bunch of unreliable sources as well, such as direct lyrics, kelmelreviews and SoulBounce. It does need a clean up. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:08, 28 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) 19:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Bagh-e Hajji Abdol (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 any evidence that this village even exists. Google turns up nothing but Knowledge mirrors. Adam9007 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete — As far as I can tell, it exists, but it's just a farm, not a village. The name means "Hajji Abdol's garden", and this database explicitly calls it a farm. (Click on the green bar, then copy+paste the Persian name into the searchbar.) The Iranian census document linked to in the article does indeed call Bagh-e Hajji Abdol a village, but given that there are other "villages" listed in the same county with names translating to "gas station", "cement factory", and "peasant chicken slaughterhouse", it seems that the census takers were taking note of pretty much any building they came across. Which is pretty cool, but it doesn't mean we need an article for every one of them. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 22:19, 27 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) 19:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Shaquille Momad Nangy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was created earlier today and draftified soon after. The draft was then submitted and declined as there is no evidence of the subject meeting WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. The Mozambique league is not professional, it doesn't look like he plays for the national team and I can't find any coverage on him outside of Facebook and the database websites already cited. Spiderone 17:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Subject is not notable as they have not played enough professional soccer. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:28, 27 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. Daniel (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

2020 Suweida protests (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 notes an extremely short-lived and extremely small-scale protest, thus it does not meet Knowledge notability guidelines and should be either deleted or merged with relevant pages detailing protests in Syria throughout the years Kamataran (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:51, 27 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) Haleth (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

"nothing but very brief mentions - zero real world notability" VideoGamePlaya (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - zero real world notability. Simple brief mentions, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 15:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Background: The article was first redirected in 2017 with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ronnie_Gardocki&diff=765593563&oldid=765525569 The article was in a poor state at the time; excessive fancruft, unsourced OR, zero real-world information and the redirect proceeded undiscussed, perhaps unsurprisingly. Following some recent work I've done on Vic Mackey and Kavanagh's articles, I thought there may well be some justification for the inclusion of other prominent characters-- Shane came to mind, and to a lesser extent, Ronnie and Lem. I decided to resurrect Ronnie, trimming the fat and adding real-world info. I knew from the start some may oppose this. Reasoning: I thought his role as the most prominent breakout character in The Shield per Digital Spy https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a809365/12-minor-tv-characters-who-ended-up-stealing-the-whole-show/ (and many of the other sources provided), might meet notability. Most of the sources already provided do, admittedly, mention Ronnie only trivially. Others, however, mention him in detail, Salon in particular. Also, I had intended to add more to this article, but I'm going to wait and see what the general trend is here before doing anything. Specifically was going to use this source by Robin Abrahams http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/missconduct/2008/09/if_you_were_cas.html and one or two others which I can't seem to find now but will add later.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or merge I'm not sure I understand because I agree with the weak keep of VideoGamePlaya but they are also the nom for deletion. This article has WP:POTENTIAL even as an older series especially if someone is aware of the issues and willing to work on it. We can revisit it again after it's had more time. Archrogue (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment My bad, I should've cleared that up. I'm the guy responsible for resurrecting and rewriting this article. Another user expressed concern that it contains "nothing but very brief mentions zero real world notability" and restored the undiscussed redirect of 2017 I mentioned in my last reply. I knew there would be some opposition to this article, and I was undecided even myself at first in regards to its notability, so I took it upon myself to nominate for deletion, as I'd like to know what the feeling is among others before attempting any more improvements. That being said I still believe in the weak keep, for the reasons given above.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment If that is the case, you should withdraw this nomination (which will be procedurally closed as Speedy Keep by another editor), as you are not actually making a case for deletion because the topic does not meet the WP:GNG threshold in accordance with Knowledge's deletion policy. May I suggest that you start a discussion on the talk page. or ask for assistance from members of this Wikiproject. An AfD is not the appropriate avenue to get the attention of editors who may be interested in improving an article, especially when you don't actually believe that the article's issues are insurmountable yourself per WP:ATD. Haleth (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. Admittedly I'm new to this, and I assumed submitting one's own work for review here was an acceptable thing to do. I wasn't sure from the beginning if this article was notable enough to justify inclusion on this website. Still though I thought I'd give it a go in good faith. My nomination was simply to ascertain what others thought about the article's suitability before committing any more of time to it. I also saw the process as inevitable - indeed, another user quickly expressed concern. Apologies for any inconvenience. Edit: To add to the inconvenience I'm also unsure how to withdraw a nomination as you've asked. Is there a proper way to do this?VideoGamePlaya (talk) 05:46, 1 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 delete. Cabayi (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Into the Darkness (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)

While it does appear that the film did begin production, that is not an actual requirement of WP:NFILM, rather that is a timing issue of when a film has potential notability. This failed film meets none of the actual criteria of WP:NFILM. Onel5969 13:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 13:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The article fails to comply its SNG. Many dead links (archived links dead too). It also fails to meets the CNG. The few sources that are active do not have significant coverage. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete unreleased, uncompleted film. Fails WP:NFF Donaldd23 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete When is a film not a film? When it’s not a film. Fails WP:NFF Hildrethgazzard (talk) 11:00, 06 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 Draftify. Eddie891 _Work 12:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Corner Office (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)

per WP:GNG, despite this film having evidence that it has entered filming, it does not have significant coverage, this should be moved back to a draft until it receives more coverage BOVINEBOY2008 12:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment:I want to leave my opinion here as I am the creator of the article, firstly the film belongs to the filmography of a well-known director of which there are articles from each of his films, secondly it has a cast made up of well-known actors and which, like the director, have articles on practically all the films in which they participated. It should also be mentioned that it is being produced by well-known producers. I am more than sure that more articles will appear over time and I promise to add them when that happens. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify for now. Topic is highly likely to be notable, but right now, we only have an article from The Hollywood Reporter about it. We would need more significant coverage from multiple reliable sources before we can have an article in the mainspace. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify per Erik. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify per above. The way the world is going, the film might be delayed... Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 1 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. Eddie891 _Work 12:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Fitnete Rexha (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 singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment Google Scholar turns up two references to him, one in Albanian. I think he's notable, but I'm unable to read the one article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep She received the Merited Artist of Albania title during her lifetime in 1961 (), and was posthumously named to the Grand Master Order of Albania by President Alfred Moisiu in 2007. She received significant coverage in Gazeta Telegraf here and has an entire 156-page book written about her (here). DanCherek (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - passes MUSICBIO as explained above; likely passes GNG too Spiderone 16:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as this discussion has identified that she had won notable national awards and had also been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:49, 2 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 delete. Eddie891 _Work 12:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Mukhtar Abayomi Sanusi (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 was draftified due to not yet passing WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Article creator contested this by moving the article back. I have searched both with and without the middle name and can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone 12:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: - Does not yet satisfy WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG but is a recent signing for a club considered a member of a professional league and could thus pass the footy guidelines at almost any moment (WP:TOOSOON). Although there is a danger of 'move-warring' it should at least be returned to draft until such time as he satisfies the requirements. The alternative would be to delete (it should not be kept as it stands) and if returned to main without improvement it should be deleted. Eagleash (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Can be restored if/when he makes his debut. GiantSnowman 13:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete — NFOOTY is not met & neither is GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails all relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 4 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. Eddie891 _Work 12:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ami Yoshida (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 meets neither WP:NMUSICIAN nor WP:GNG. A wp:before search yields no usable sources (with English and native name). ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I found a few album reviews in english sources, including one in Pitchfork, which leads me to believe there's probably more I'm not finding, but with what I see I'm going to have to fall on the side of delete unless someone can find more to establish notability. 1 2 3 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

With the additional sources provided I'm now at Weak Keep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - adding the Stylus review and Squid's Ear review to the mix as well, I think that there is probably just enough out there to show that she meets at the least bare minimum level of notability. You could argue that she meets #7 of NMUSICIAN due to being a prominent representative of a very quirky style of music, in my opinion Spiderone 22:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Pitchfork is one of the most prominent music publications in existence (the review is somewhat early in their run, but Pitchfork fairly regularly removes old reviews they don't endorse), and Stylus was well-known while ran and employed reputable music journalists. I am less familiar with All About Jazz but its page here suggests that it appears to be considered reliable in the jazz writing field. The reviews are unambiguously in-depth and non-trivial. Thus, it passes both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN criterion 1. There is also this retrospective piece (because I know someone will bring it up: one of those sites bankrolled by a brand, in this case Red Bull, but that releases actual longform music journalism that, in this case, is independent of the brand; the author, Clive Bell, is a journalist who specializes in Japanese jazz); it isn't significant coverage of the artist herself but does provide useful background of the scene she was involved in. (https://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/2014/10/off-site-improvised-music-from-japan). There also appears to be some academic coverage (https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22ami+yoshida%22), and I suspect there is probably coverage in Japanese. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as enough significant coverage in multiple reliable sources has been identified in this discussion to show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 5 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. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School (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 The Banner talk 21:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - If you look through the talk archive, you'll see their are myriad sources discussing this school. It easily passes GNG. 174.212.238.134 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • But most of those sources were related, not reliable, independent sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 19:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• A detailed article in a big city daily along with the usual list of common sources should reach the relatively low bar we've set for schools. 174.254.193.220 (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is a low bar for the notability of schools. It's about the same as other organizations. Especially considering the recent RFC about subject specific guidelines taking precedence over the GNG and school outcomes not being valid in AFCs anymore. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete The sources might pass the GNG, although it's questionable IMO, but they don't pass WP:NORG from what I can tell. Which is the relevant guideline for the notability of schools now that there was an RfC about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. McCabe, Kathy (2015-05-02). "Making the grade in Lawrence". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.

     The article notes that Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School is "modeled after Nativity and Cristo Rey (Christ the King) schools founded by Jesuit priests decades ago in major cities". The article notes that Lawrence is "one of the state's poorest cities" and Cristo Rey schools depend nearly fully on charity and companies. The article notes that Notre Dame's students are in a work-study program in which they spend five days monthly at a company. Their tuition is $12,000, and the work allows them to receive wages that pay for 60% of it, or $7,000, so they only need to pay $2,900.

     The article notes "Notre Dame, located in the former St. Mary parish high school on Haverhill Street, must attract more business support to grow." It says that the work-study program makes the school $1.5 million annually. This is almost 50% of its $3.3 million yearly budget. The school has partnered with 74 companies at which its students work. Law firms, technology companies, and hospitals participate in the work-study program. The school has classes from 7:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Volunteers help tutor students in "study halls". The school has vans that transport the students to and from work; the transportation can be 1.5 hours in one direction.

  2. Donovan, William; Thielman, Jeffrey (November 2017). "Cristo Rey Schools: A Model of 21st-Century Catholic Education" (PDF). Pioneer Institute. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27 – via Education Resources Information Center.

     The article notes, "Notre Dame Cristo Rey (NDCR) High School began as a new school in Lawrence, starting with 80 students and totaling 270 students in 2016. It is run by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. ... In the 2015–2016 school year stu- dents at Cristo Rey Boston earned more than $2.6 million at 125 businesses and non-profit organizations. Employers pay about $34,800 per year for a team of four students, which equates to $23 per hour, according to John O’Keeffe, director of the work study program, though the program is sold both as a way for companies to get work done and an opportunity to help urban young people pay for a college preparatory educa- tion. About 60 percent of the school’s revenue comes from the work-study program."

  3. Tennant, Paul (2017-09-22). "Aiming high. Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School touts 100 percent college rate for grads". The Eagle-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.

     The article notes, "When Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School was founded in 2004, its mission was to give students from low-income families in Lawrence the opportunity to receive a solid Catholic education and win acceptance at colleges and universities. Thirteen years later, Cristo Rey is batting 1.000, according to Sister Maryalyce Gilfeather, SND, PhD, the school's president and a longtime member of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur." The article notes that Anthony Zavagnin is the principal, the tuition is $7,750, and the students can "afford" that tuition by doing a "corporate work/study" job. The students work at MITRE, Raytheon, Lawrence Catholic Academy, Lawrence General Hospital, Lowell General Hospital, Ironstone Farm, New England Biolabs. The students do jobs that involve "filing, data entry coding and serving as receptionists" as well as nursing assistants. The students wears blue uniforms. Sports offered by the school include softball and basketball. The school is located at 303 Haverhill St., which housed for numerous years the all-girls school St. Mary High School, which stopped operations in 1996. The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur took over the building and established Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School in it. In 2008, the school's inaugural class of students graduated.

  4. Laidler, John (2020-03-04). "As one Catholic high school shutters, another readies for its new home". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.

     The article notes, "Opened in 2004, Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School is one of six schools in Massachusetts run by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. The Lawrence school, which rents its space from a local parish, is the only Notre Dame school in the country that belongs to Cristo Rey, a national network of Catholic schools that serve disadvantaged youth."

  5. Marchetti, Garrin (2015-06-07). "Notre Dame Cristo Rey celebrates 63 graduates". The Eagle-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.

     The article notes that Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School held a graduation ceremony for 63 seniors who received a 100% college acceptance rate. The article notes that during the students' four-year tenure at the high school, the school had four principals.

  6. Edelstein, Breanna (2020-02-26). "Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School to move into Presentation of Mary". The Eagle-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.

     The articles notes that Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School was established in 2004, has 282 students (70 seniors, 62 juniors, 72 sophomores, and 78 freshmen), has a $14,500 tuition, and 85% of students cannot pay the full tuition but every family contributes an amount. 90% of the students live in Lawrence. 66% of the students are female and 34% are male. The article notes that Sr. Maralyce Gilfeather is the president of Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School to pass Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - the sources presented by Cunard convince me that the subject passes the GNG (and, for that matter, NCORP). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG based on the sources provided. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 2 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 delete. Consensus of policy-oriented arguments clearly sits to delete. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Mario Rodriguez (aviation executive) (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:NBIO. Serving as an airport director is not particularly notable, even at the largest airports (which Indianapolis is not). Heavy edits from IP addresses and the text make it seem like it has been written by the subject of the article. TractorTrailer258 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

   David Letterman
   Eddie Rickenbacker
   Eva Mozes Kor
   Gus Grissom
   President Harry Truman
   Jeff Gordon
   John Wooden
   Muhammad Ali
   Ryan White"

• Comment.: I've tried to reorder the comments from the IP addresses so that they are more understandable. IP address 184.170.167.137 has been blocked for repeatedly removing the AFD tag on the article in question. The comments above repeatedly mention how notable the Sagamore of the Wabash award is, but it appears that the award is routinely given to all manner of people, both notable and not. This article notes that "thousands" have been awarded, that there is no centralized roll of awardees, and that the Sachem Award is more prestigious. The "Congressional Recognition" that is mentioned appears to be no more than a minor laudatory statement that was submitted into the Congressional Record (for example, the next entry in the Congressional Record is congratulating a couple on their 50th wedding anniversary). Finally, serving on a Presidential transition team is also not inherently notable; hundreds of people serve as transition team members every time there is a Presidential transition and while their work is important, it is ultimately just temporary and preparatory staff work. In fact, only one of the Department of Transportation transition team members appears to have an article (Polly Trottenberg, and she was Commissioner of Transportation in New York City and nominated to become Deputy Secretary of Transportation. I'm very sorry these IP users (who very much appear to have a close personal connection with Mr. Rodriguez) are taking offense to this AfD, but I still believe this article fails WP:NBIO and should be deleted. TractorTrailer258 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment can some one have a look at the spamming on this article --Devokewater 11:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I have collapsed the comments by IP. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 12:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I have performed a quick source analysis and could only find two sources that came close to meeting our gold standard of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. That said, I am not particularly familiar with sourcing for airport-related articles, so an independent second opinion on some sources would be appreciated (noted in the table). All told however, I highly doubt this person meets the general notability guideline. Simply serving on a Presidential transition team is nowhere near close to being of inherent notability - hundreds of people serve on each team. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: The page is now semi-protected for a month after I have requested it. This should stop the spam from IPs. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 17:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - the questionable items from the talk page links do not speak to notability due to lack of independence. When you have similar stories from multiple sources, all with time and geographic correlation, it's a fair bet they are all written from the same press release. The Sagamore of the Wabash is an honorarium akin to "Kentucky colonel" - it doesn't speak to notability. 174.254.192.230 (talk) 18:16, 2 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 redirect to Self Made (album) (WP:ATD). Daniel (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Dis Morning (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:NMUSIC. Lacks sources, and I'm unable to find any more online. WikiMacaroons 11:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroons 11:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: I think I agree. There are really not much results about it. Almost all are just the phrase "this morning" spelt as "dis morning" or in a foreign language. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 11:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Self Made (album). I couldn't find any independent sources about this song either, but it still appears on an album article that is notable. Carbrera (talk) 15:34, 27 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. Eddie891 _Work 13:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Liljana Kondakçi (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 singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - I would say that winning Festivali i Këngës and being a Merited Artist would make her notable. These sources from the Swedish Knowledge do verify some of the claims Spiderone 12:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Several books mentioning her winning the Festival, also in relation as a merited Artist. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Spiderone. ser! (chat to me). 15:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Google Scholar turns up a paper mentioning her win at the festival. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as has won a notable competition and received a notable national award as confirmed in the reliable sources identified by Spiderone, passes WP:Anybio imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 5 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. Daniel (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Adelina Thaçi (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 singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep according to the Albanian wikipedia article she has had charting hits and has also won a significant Albanian music competition, therefore she passes WP:NMUSIC in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep same as before, Winner of the festival, also several hits in the charts. some books mentioning her works. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with the keep arguments above Spiderone 12:38, 27 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) 21:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Gokulam Gopalan (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 provided sources does not have enough coverage about the person. It is covering about the movies he has produced. I did a detailed WP:Before to find sources in both English and Malayalam and was not able to find anything that satisfies WP:GNG. Kichu🐘 07:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 07:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 07:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 07:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 07:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 07:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not even close to being a notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 2 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. Eddie891 _Work 13:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Amal Jyothi College of Engineering (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 of nobility. Completely unsourced and promotional article. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG JaiMahadev (talk), 06:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• The nominator is blocked/banned. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 12:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - the nomination is blatantly false. This is neither unsourced nor promotional. Spiderone 10:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: The nomination is erroneous. Neither unsourced nor promotional. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 12:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep erroneous nomination by an outed sock puppet. If we discover it in time, I don't think socks should have standing to start AfDs. SportingFlyer T·C 22:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: nom blocked for socking. This should be a proceedural close, noms by socks shouldn't even be considered; if another editor feels this should be deleted, they can renominate and this close should not be considered as a normal Keep in that discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  16:25, 5 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn, and snowing anyway. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee (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 reliable secondary sources actually talk about arbcom. Most of them do not mention them, or just gives a slight passing mention. ThatIPEditor 06:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ThatIPEditor 06:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The nomination's claim is blatantly false. It does not provide any evidence in support of its claim, does not address the 27 citations in the existing page or the additional counter-examples which may be easily found such as Wired and Wall Street Journal. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. ArbCom had a full-fledged article in the Wall Street Journal as mentioned above (see the Knowledge page talk page's templates) and was repeatedly mentioned in this story from the Washington Post. We also have similar encyclopedia articles on Knowledge administrators, Wikipedian in residence and Knowledge bots. Cordially, History DMZ 10:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Editor has clearly not looked at article or done a WP:Before! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per the others. Sorry. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above arguments. Genuinely thought this was a WP:APRIL edit momentarily. ser! (chat to me). 12:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Might want to take a look at this on the article talk page. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 14:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That is to say I think speedy close C3 may not apply here. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 14:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: Withdrawn. Clearly no consensus to delete. ThatIPEditor 18:57, 27 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. If anyone wishes to create the catch-all article as discussed and needs any of the deleted content, let me know and I can undelete and redirect (so that history can be merged from behind it). Daniel (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

London commuter routes 781 and 784 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Complete failure of WP:GNG that is also entirely unsourced. No obvious redirect target as Green Line Coaches, New Enterprise Coaches (also at AfD) and Chalkwell Coaches have all run the services which have now supposedly ceased. SK2242 (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet gng. I have raised an idea for a Public Transport SNG in the ideas hub in the pump room.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think the topic of commuter coaches to London is probably notable, and small parts of this (if sourceable, I've not looked) could be included in such an article but I can't find that we currently have one - Coach transport in the United Kingdom is exclusively about long distance intercity routes for example and Green Line Coaches deals with only one operator. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that this needs to a delete, but also agree with Thryduulf that London commuter coaches is an actual article, as they became a big thing back in the 80s. I will add to the wish list of pages on Knowledge, if it is not there already.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. These coach routes are not even close to meeting the same notability as, say, a London bus route. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 2 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ellington (band) (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 band, ineligible for PROD. Largely unsourced and tagged for 10 years. JayJay 03:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay 03:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JayJay 03:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Tagged for 10 years? 10 years?! Tucker Gladden 👑 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete agree, very few sources. Also poorly referenced, 1 and 4 are broken. Teraplane (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I have provided some RSes mostly from Trove searches. Their latter two EPs were reviewed, they toured Australia, they pass WP:NBAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Shaidar cuebiyar above. A reasonable amount of sources exists to improve the article as it currently stands. It appears that the nominator failed to do a check for available sources prior to this discussion. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY after sources added by Shaidar cuebiyar. Deus et lex (talk) 04:40, 28 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. Spartaz 09:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

List of gender reveal party accidents (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:LISTN and WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Mentioning most of these incidents also goes against the principle of WP:BLP1E, as noted on the talk page. Most of them are just covered by local news, which is not noteworthy. The whole theme of treating "gender reveal party accident" as a notable category - and not singling out any other kind of party - also seems rather WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOXy, even if some source mentioned one when reporting on another. Crossroads 05:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Crossroads 05:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Crossroads 05:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads 05:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Crossroads 05:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Reporting on such accidents from gender-reveal parties seems to be a years-long theme of news media. to the point that there are now articles on the general theme of such parties ending in misfortune, sometimes including their own lists (e.g., 1; 2; 3; 4; 5). Just the New York Times coverage alone is considerable: "Explosive devices used at gender-reveal events have been linked to at least two deaths since 2019 and two major wildfires" it noted this week, after asking "Are Gender Reveals Cursed?" last year, after saying, the year before that, that "a plane crash could be added to th list" of gender-reveal parties that "have ended in calamity". While each singular event may not be considered notable, surely the concept of "gender-reveal parties as a general cause of accidents" is. Crossroads, you say that this "Fails WP:LISTN", but don't say why. Reading through it, it seems crystal clear that gender-reveal-party accidents have with extreme frequency been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". --Usernameunique (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  Your sources 2-5 are not WP:Reliable sources. Crossroads 15:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep & Comment I think this is a useful resource, accidents are becoming one of the most notable aspects of gender reveal parties, and a list is a useful addition Lajmmoore (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  See WP:ITSUSEFUL. Crossroads 15:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This is actually a real thing that gets coverage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/08/california-gender-reveal-fire/ The woman who started the trend even posted online asking people to stop it, it just causing so many problems. Dream Focus 11:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Discussed in national, not just local media, and treated as a group per the quotations provided above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Just because a major news outlet mentions past ones when reporting a recent one doesn't mean there is significant coverage of this as an alleged topic. Doubly so if the source is trying to push a narrative about gender reveal parties. Crossroads 15:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If the source is “push a narrative” about these collectively, that sounds exactly like significant coverage of the group as a topic. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. This list article is an excuse to detail every non-notable mishap at a gender reveal party, which is not discriminate: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Knowledge article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" (WP:NOT). None of these people will be notable (WP:BIO1E) and none of the individual events will be notable (WP:EVENT). Much of the reporting is low-quality sensationalism, which we should not use (WP:SENSATIONAL). There already is a section in Gender reveal party regarding incidents that can be used to appropriately summarize the problems with these events; appropriate sources for that section are pieces that discuss the general issue of gender reveal parties going wrong, not those which only cover individual incidents. With this article we are immortalising - indeed mocking, with the link to Darwin Award - a traumatic event in the lives of non-public figures. We are an encyclopedia, not a pillory. Fences&Windows 20:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:SENSATIONAL, gender reveal party accidents, like most other accidents, are not notable, and this article only exists as it has become a fad to sensationalize them. This kind of thing can get a mention in gender-reveal party#Incidents and injuries and that's all it needs. The keep rationale by User:Lajmmoore demonstrates this; as most gender reveal parties don't end in accidents but tabloid reporting has led to the perception they do._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, as very few incidents, if any, would satisfy the criteria for WP:NEVENT. Also Knowledge is WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ajf773, that reason is explicitly rejected by the notability guidelines: "Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. ... Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". --Usernameunique (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• It hasn't clearly been discussed as a group or set - 'incidents have happened at other gender reveals like this and that' is not significant coverage or discussion. Crossroads 06:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

*Weak keep - per all above 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 16:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Delete, per below 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete/merge Gender_reveal_party#Incidents_and_injuries already has a few key incidents. This section could be expanded or restructured, but this should not be a stand-alone list that attempts to collect every little bit of passing sensationalized news events. Reywas92 19:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep It makes more sense to have these incidents listed in their own list article than the ever-growing section of the Gender reveal party page. It's good future-proofing, as well. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete There is no reason to have such a listing of non-notable incidents. This clearly fails not news and not indiscriminate rules. I have to admit I never understood these parties, but I do not understand why to single out these parties for mockery either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete -- I came here due to the discussion at BLPN, and this not only contains so many BLP issues and violations, but is also a magnet for many more problems and vios that I don't even know where to begin. First, we should be keeping in mind that a list is not a way to circumvent BLP1E, and that we usually try to respect the privacy of non-notable people. For example, we don't name the spouses and children of notable people, unless those people are themselves notable in their own right, nor do we name non-notable victims of crimes or accidents. (See any airline crash or bridge collapse.) Not everybody wants to be famous (and wisely so), nor does everyone appreciate having their humiliation carved in stone next to their name on Knowledge.

This is just a collection of accidents that someone grouped together under an arbitrary title. It's simply a way of cross-referencing info. We could just as easily have a list of people injured by cannons at a party, or accidents involving collisions between snowmachines (snowmobiles) and powerline cables. This is a perfect example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We're not a search engine, and I'd leave this sort of cross-referencing to google. For those who would point out a need for safety, I would point to WP:NOTMANUAL.

What we're basically doing here is creating a category, and you have to be very careful with categories and lists when it comes to BLPs, because --even with the best of intentions-- categorization is the root of all stereotyping which in turn is the root of all prejudice. (Just check any good psychology book for sources on that.) Even with the best of intentions, it can have a terrible way of backfiring. Whenever we do this, we're creating a list of people and defining them solely by the title of that category/list, and that is extremely one-sided and stereotypical. An encyclopedia is about defining things, and a good list article has a subject it defines, but that subject simply consists of multiple elements. Basic fighter maneuvers is a good example of a list article, and so is List of fallacies. This is more a list of BLP violations just waiting to happen. Zaereth (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep BLP issues can/should be dealt with by removing names in the articles I have gone ahead and removed all non-notable names from the list which should take care of BLP issues. Passes WP:LISTN as news outlets have covered this as a trend. As per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, none of the categories of articles detailed in the policy actually apply in this situation. Zoozaz1 talk 16:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The number of policy and guideline violations here are almost too much to get into without delving into WP:TLDR problems. This represents a trivial non-identifying characteristic for a list to be built around (WP:SALAT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE), it's entirely populated by minor embarrassing news stories about people who otherwise have done nothing to merit inclusion in Knowledge for any reason (WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP), it's a magnet for absolutely unremarkable local news. Just, no. The defense of this article seems to consist of people asserting that it doesn't violate all of these policies, against the clear and blatant background of it doing just that. Please make it go away. --Jayron32 19:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:NOTTEMP. All of these incidents are one-off accidents or bone-headed decisions. While each one may be verified by local news sources the Gender-reveal common thread doesn't warrant its own stand-alone list. Had these incidents happened at company picnics would they be notable? Blue Riband► 06:47, 7 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 merge to Doctor Who Online. Daniel (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who: DWO Whocast (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 any other sources for this podcast and I'm not sure if the magazines being cited really count as reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Doctor Who Online - I'm not positive that the site that produces this podcast is notable, itself, but just some quick searches shows that there is a far greater possibility of that than the podcast being independently notable. The website actually has some images of some of the magazine reviews being cited, and the coverage of the podcast in them is pretty slim. Redirecting to the main article on the fansite, with the potential to merge anything from the history deemed necessary, seems like the best step here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Doctor Who Online: Barely found anything about the podcast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep (New !vote update below): As SFX and SciFiNow are print magazines that have been around for a decent period of time. They should be considered reliable as they both had editorial oversight (SFX staff, SciFiNow staff). Worst-case, we should WP:AGF for print-only coverage remembering that WP:OFFLINE sources are as valid as online ones in order to not introduce WP:RECENTISM. If the significance of the referenced coverage is in question, the history of the page, before this significant trim, at this version Special:PermanentLink/648031973, you can at least see that there was once quoted material with some substance, though more than was necessary. (It may have been over-trimmed a bit, though.) --2pou (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  2pou, Could you link to that coverage by SFX / SciFi now so we can judge whether it is non-trivial? All that the article says is that some episodes were 'rated'. This reminds me of videogames, where IIRC we require more substantial reviews and just passing ratings here and there would not be enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Piotrus: Unfortunately, I cannot, and I never subscribed to either print magazine. I am assuming good faith myself that the editor that added the referenced coverage from the print magazines used good judgement in determining it to be worthwhile and significant. Seems like a leap of faith, but I think it becomes more of a hop than a leap after looking at the old version of the article here: Special:PermanentLink/648031973. In that version, there are lengthy quotes from the reviews that give me a comfortable indication that the pieces were significant coverage. Several quotes themselves are over WP:100W—definitely more than just a rating. Now, it is possible that the entirety of the coverage is the quoted material, but I would hope that is not the case and that the editor followed WP:NOFULLTEXT. Again, I'm AGF, but there's enough to make an informed decision (for me at least). -2pou (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  FYI, as I mentioned in my vote above, at least one of the referenced reviews is actually available to view on the Doctor Who Online website, here. And, unfortunately, it seems that the quote from that issue that was in the previous version of this article was the entirety of the review. So, if that is also the case with the others, then that's really not a whole lot. Just based on that section of the website, there was substantially more coverage on the Doctor Who Online site as a whole, rather than just the specific podcast portion of it, which is why I recommended the podcast be redirected/merged to the overall article on the site. Rorshacma (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Rorshacma, Indeed, that's my impression as well. A single sentence or less type of coverage fails WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oof. Thanks for pointing out that link. I was definitely not searching the site for the images. I'm now swayed the other way, though a merge is probably more appropriate since only a sentence is at the proposed target. All aren't just a single sentence, and some are on par with Kirkus and Publishers Weekly non-plot review points--almost the foundation of WP:NBOOK--but given that the final quote was much less than the arbitrary 100 words yardstick, and that was required to reach multiple, taking out the assumption that it's only a snippet, it falls short of GNG. -2pou (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect per discussion above. Ping me if evidence of SIGCOV is found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Doctor Who Online (updated !vote). Seeming to fall short of being notable enough for its own article, there is enough content and source to warrant at least a small subsection at the proposed target. Without merging a little content, it comes close to being an WP:ASTONISHING redirect. Wouldn't need much, though. -2pou (talk) 05:55, 5 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 draftify. TheSandDoctor 17:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:BAND. Article consists of pre-debut activity by individual members unrelated to the group itself, routine coverage, and little else. No charting releases, no awards, nothing to indicate notability. ƏXPLICIT 02:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ƏXPLICIT 02:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ƏXPLICIT 02:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ƏXPLICIT 02:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ƏXPLICIT 02:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify: I believe, as the creator of this article, it definitely still needs A LOT of work. I'll make sure nobody tries to resubmit before then. And it would be a shame to throw it all away. Maybe I would move it back to mainspace after something big happens? Because now is definitely not the time. One lesson I've learnt from this AfD now — don't write a main article on an act that hasn't debuted yet. —beetricks ~ talk · email 04:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Beetricks. For the future, I recommend saying Draftify or Userfy instead, as it might not come up in your AfD log properly otherwise. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, Foxnpichu! —beetricks ~ talk · email 15:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify: fails WP:NMG. Abdotorg (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify. I'm not seeing anything really usable in English-language Google searches (string: "purple kiss") but as this is a Korean girl group this is to be expected. If there's any usable sources, they will be in the Korean language. The original editor being willing to take this back to the lab to work on it argues in favour of granting their wish. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 15:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Draftify. The subject currently fails WP:NMUSIC, the article should be incubated in the draftspace and developed there. Once the band debuts and there is substantial coverage, it can be moved back to the mainspace. --Ashleyyoursmile! 14:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a great article, definitely resubmit it once it becomes acceptable under WP policies. Policies can be so tricky and hard to work around sometimes, so this random user wishes to take the time and to thank you for your work ^^ Knightoften (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Draftify as above, as may be notable when they debut and release some music, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 5 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 redirect to Paris by Night. Daniel (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Paris by Night 15 (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 is an episode of the direct-to-video Vietnamese-language variety show Paris by Night. Although the overall series is notable, that does not necessarily mean that every episode is notable, and as far as I can tell the majority of episodes don't have individual articles on the English Knowledge. There is not much in this article besides a list of the songs performed (I assume that's what the titles refer to), and there are no sources cited at all. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to Paris by Night--No indication of notability per WP:GNG. HĐ (talk) 04:42, 2 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 merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting. Eddie891 _Work 03:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Track 5 (Taylor Swift) (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 concept started from fan speculations, and the article comes off as WP:FANCRUFT that entertains a specific portion of audience. I am not sure if this deserves a standalone encyclopedic article, given that Taylor Swift has talked about this concept only once, and the rest of the article can be considered WP:SPECULATION. HĐ (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - this is pure WP:FANCRUFT and a relatively marginal area that does not warrant a separate article. --Ashleyyoursmile! 04:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting per HĐ- seems like a reasonable course of action now, since that has been suggested. Nonetheless, the article substantially WP:FANCRUFT and should be trimmed to include only the relevant content. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - the significance of each individual track 5 can be covered on the respective album's page. There isn't enough of a running theme or correlation between these songs to justify taking them out of their albums' contexts and covering them here.--NØ 07:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete As per Ashley, pure WP:FANCRUFT. Hulatam (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I'm going to go against the flow here and suggest that since I managed to clean up and expand the article from the multiple, independent reliable sources already there to beyond a stub level, there is a case for improving this article and not deleting it. For the record, I don't believe I have ever heard one note of Taylor Swift's music, so the FANCRUFT accusations honestly can't be levelled at me. Ritchie333 11:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• The problem is that the "Track 5" concept is made up by fans--Swift has only confirmed this concept for her most recent albums. She has not elaborated on it as part of her career overall. No indication of its significance in her discography/songs. And this is not a fan-wiki to begin with. HĐ (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• To note, even if this concept is verifiable, I earnestly think an article on this matter could constitute WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I do not believe a concept that is "a mythology she's built up with her fan base" is worth an encyclopedic entry. Even in the quote Swift said herself--she admitted she never had such a thing called "Track 5" in mind until it was started among her fans. Why an article on something so delicate that comes off as WP:FORUM or even WP:NOTGOSSIP? HĐ (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

An indiscriminate collection of information would be something more like List of Taylor Swift's shoe collection. I think the real test (and something I touch on in User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7) is "can a neutral bystander improve the article", and the fact that I, very much a non-fan, have done so suggests that we can. Ritchie333 13:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge into Taylor Swift. I think the concept is worthy of mention given that it has garnered independent coverage, but I don't think it deserves its own article (yet). It could be merged into the 'Songwriting' section, or perhaps get its own. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I did consider as a first option to redirect / merge to List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift), but ultimately I thought there was too much to jam in there that didn't make it look lop sided. Ritchie333 13:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Merging it to Taylor Swift#Songwriting can be a good idea. This section details how Swift writes her songs and does mention specific themes/topics associated with each album. I cannot guarantee if everything should be retained, however. HĐ (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting - This is the best idea to come up in the discussion so far. Everyone above has valid points in many directions, but I find this suggestion (thanks to HD) to be the best way to save us from "no consensus" purgatory. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting per HD. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting: While it's good enough to pass WP:GNG, I believe it's best to discuss it in the target article per WP:SPLIT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting per the above comments. I think that is the best route to go as I do not think there is enough evidence of significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting (WP:CRUFT, WP:SIGCOV, WP:UNDUE) but don’t merge the entire paragraph, aka not this. It warrants a couple sentences, but I don’t think +1000 bytes is needed, especially since she talked about it one time. D🐶ggy54321 19:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. One or two sentences should suffice. Why putting undue weight onto something that Swift herself has barely ever mentioned? HĐ (talk) 01:40, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sara Wilford (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 concerns a grandchild of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was a psychologist at Sarah Lawrence until recently. The article relies on essentially four sources: (1) bio pages at Sarah Lawrence, (2) a page from the FDR Presidential Library identifying her as one of his many descendants, (3) a directory of academics, and (4) a brief mention in an NYT obituary for her husband. IMHO, this does not qualify as significant media coverage given that, aside from the Sarah Lawrence pages, none of the other sources discuss her in any meaningful capacity. Likewise, BEFORE searches did not return any meaningful results.

So, I'm nominating this because I do not believe it passes WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. If others can find sources meeting those criteria, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: WP:NACADEMIC #5 pass by virtue of holding a named chair at a major institution (Roy E Larsen Chair of Psychology at Sarah Lawrence). Directing a large university center on education for twenty years and earning tons of awards for her research about teaching, both from her institution and externally, gives her a strong argument for NACADEMIC #7 also, and some of her awards could be passes of #2. And her books are widely reviewed; there is an WP:NEXIST pass of GNG here. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Astrophobe, Ah, thank you for spotting the named chair appointment. I didn't see that and I agree that it satisfies NACADEMIC #5. I don't agree with the NEXISTS assertion but the point is moot so we don't need to debate it. I'll withdraw the nomination. Thanks much. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:11, 27 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.